Elected Non-policy positions

I’m curious what people think about pros and cons of electing positions that aren’t policy-setting. For instance, Charlton currently elects its Town Clerk, and used to elect its Town Tax Collector and Town Treasurer. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts elects its Auditor and Treasurer. I’m not sure how policy-setting the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth are, but they’re elected too and might fit in this category.

Many of these positions require specialized knowledge and training, and it’s not clear that voters always know who would actually do the best job. Although, it’s not always clear than an appointing authority (in the executive branch, say) would do the best job either.

Just wondering what people think about it.

1 thought on “Elected Non-policy positions

  1. I think that it is good for the Auditor and Treasurer to run. They are part of the checks upon other parts of the government. If the are appointed to those positions by the people they are suppose to keep an eye on, it could color how they do things. A good example is the Big Dig, our so bright people we elected made the companies that were doing the work self monitoring and it got very expensive and slow to be finished.

Comments are closed.