Rock County residents to vote for coroner
JANESVILLE — In 50 years, Ronnie Thomas has never missed a chance to vote.
So the Janesville resident spoke up when he heard his right to vote for the coroner might be taken away.
“When you vote for an office and have been able to vote for an office since we became a state, it seems like you’re railroading my rights right out the door,” he told the Rock County Board on Thursday night.
He and other passionate voters got their way after the board voted 16-12 in favor of keeping the elected coroner’s office instead of appointing a medical examiner.
Rock County residents will vote for coroner in the November 2010 election.
“I think the people of Rock County know what they’re doing when they vote,” board member Marv Wopat said.
Board members in 2005 voted to change the position in 2011 from an elected coroner to an appointed medical examiner after problems in the office. Proponents said the county could better oversee a medical examiner.
Former Coroner Karen Gilbertson was arrested for stealing prescription drugs from death scenes. She later pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office and died while serving her sentence.
Board members in favor of an elected coroner said they trusted voters to elect a competent and qualified coroner. They said the previous problem was the coroner and not the office. They added the office has since restored its professionalism.
“Let’s not throw out the entire bushel because of one bad apple,” board member Brian Knudson said.
Another argument for electing a coroner was that the coroner works for the public to investigate crimes, board member James Joiner said.
It would be a conflict of interest if an appointed medical examiner had to investigate county officials, he said.
Board members in favor of appointing a medical examiner said it gives them power to control the medical examiner in case of misconduct. They added that appointing a medical examiner ensures a qualified candidate would be hired.
“Neither system is without flaws, and neither one is perfect,” board member Louis Peer said. “The key is to be able to have the ability to fill this position with the person who is most qualified.”
The desire to switch between a medical examiner and coroner was the result of political parties trying to control the office, board member Phillip Owens said.
An elected coroner leaves the position open for political football, he said.
“We cannot be held hostage by a political party,” Owens said.
The current coroner, Jenifer Keach, was appointed in 2005 and elected in 2006.
She sat in the gallery listening to the debate about her job, but board members agreed she has been a good coroner.
“I think it’s a system that serves us well,” Keach said after the meeting. “I think elected officials are as trustworthy as appointed officials.”
Mar 27, 2009 at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
To add, the Secretary of defense is a totally different public office and is chosen by a president voted on by all citizens. The medical examiner is chosen by a appointed county administrator by 29 people only accountable to their individual districts, not the county as a whole. I vote for one county board member, I have no say in the other 28- The secretary of defense can not even be metioned in the same breathe as the coroner position, totally different office and different requirements.
Mar 27, 2009 at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Apparently in a fantasy world where everyone is ethical and law abiding citizens the theory of having an appointed medical examiner is easier to fire. The problem is the county board are politicians and political philosophy governs the county board, regardless of how they contend they are voting, in the end,it doesn't work that way. The coroner is a very special investigative independent investigator and anyone who actually knows the history of the coroner office understands that.
If a death occurs in a public facility like a jail, there needs to be a independent investigation. There is no safeguard from a county administrator influencing the actions of an appointed medical examiner. The medical examiner serves at the pleasure of the county administrator, not the pleasure of the county board and not at the pleasure of the voters. It is actually more difficult. The process with the Governor appointing the replacement to a coroner is purposely in place to protect the false accusations which often are leveled against public officials. The process in place is not only to protect voters but also the individual coroner to assure there is a cause for the removal of the coroner. Anyone can request removal of the coroner from the governor. If a medical examiner was approved and did the same thing, do you really think the county would have moved any faster? Look at how long it takes from placing your application for an open county job now. Throw in the added step of county board committee and the whole board itself - and the lobbying each candidate for the appointed position does (which many people never hear about or even aware it is occurring). Please spare me the excuse and assumption that the administration and county board can move quickly on a decision; anyone following county government and understands it knows the complexity and adversarial nature to it. The county administration's last report on the subject was in 2005-06, it's three years later with different political and economic issues and there is no information of the possible financial impact a medical examiner may have. I'm glad the county board voted against giving themselves the power to place a statutory office holder which is to be independent advocate for the dead. I may also add, the right to vote is a very special part of this country and we shouldn't be chosing government control over the decision of the citizens. It's not rhetoric, it's the whole principal of the country we live.
Mar 27, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
At the very least this should be a non-partisan office. The idea that an elected board making an appointment is less democratic is ridiculous. We don't vote for Secretary of Defense, because he works at the behest of someone we did elect.
.
It seems everyone has forgotten that the problem with the office wasn't just that someone holding it was abusing the voters' trust. The problem was that everyone knew this, and nothing could be done about it short of a recall election. An appointed medical examiner would be subject to oversight and removal by the county board.
.
Spare me the "right to vote" rhetoric. Obviously we trust voters to make the right choices in how things are run, or there is no point in democracy at all. But there are times when that makes accountability much more difficult.
Mar 27, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why is coroner a partisan position? Does a Democrat declare someone dead differently than a Republican? Does a Libertarian respond to a death scene faster? Why is this position not non-partisan? I see nothing political about the coroner's office.
Mar 27, 2009 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
I do not agree with Supervisor Owens that the political party in control decides the coroner position and holds everyone hostage. I ran for coroner as a democrat in 2000 and was the only county democrat not to be elected as one of the county offices. People do cross over and base their vote on the individual. I also found it interesting that those who voted for the medical examiner made the arguement that the county board should make the decision who was qualified, not voters, then in the next breathe, state how important it is for people to vote and that right should be respected. Supervisor Peer indicated he agrees with the right to vote unless there are special circumstances- I think the right to vote is one which is very precious to many and as soon as one special circumstance restricts rights, it is a slippery slope to begin
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.