Thirty years ago, my high-school physics teacher, Mr. Newman, always asked a tough question that has stuck with me for life: "Are you part of the solution or part of the problem"?

I regularly ask my teenage nephews the same question - with mixed results.

Many people are asking the Nevada County Board of Supervisors the same question when it comes to clerk-recorder Kathleen Smith. The county's top election official said late Monday she was resigning, effective June 30. But she failed to disclose she had been working 30 hours per week as city clerk of Rio Vista for the past month, as we first reported on our Web site on Wednesday. Each job pays $90,000 annually.

The board's remarks clearly paint themselves as problem solvers in dealing with Smith's "Moonlight Sonata": surprised, vocally calling for Smith's resignation and supporting negotiations for a prompt adieu.

But many people also remember how the board was part of the problem - having appointed Smith to her job in the first place nearly three years ago (before she was elected last June by a slim margin).

Residents also are concerned that the board "didn't have a clue" about her second job, worrying that its members are too out of touch.



CYA?

"The reaction of the county supervisors is important to the constituents," a Grass Valley resident wrote to me in a letter on Friday. "I've been watching the supervisors closely since the Evelyn White situation," referring to the No. 2 official at the county Veterans Service Office, who was suspended for 10 days last fall after she publicly criticized county decision makers.

"I was excited about an all-conservative board at first, but now I'm not so sure. It smells like an 'old boys network' to me. I'd like to see more outrage about the county recorder cheating the taxpayers out of full-time. I can't believe any of the Supervisors are surprised by this - nobody I know was."

Many residents remember that the previous board, led by conservatives Sue Horne and Robin Sutherland, appointed Smith to her position in June 2004. If you don't recall, the information can be found in the minutes of the board's meetings on June 2, June 8 and June 23 on the Internet (https://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dscgi/ds.py/View/Collection-7168). You can also read articles about the meetings by searching The Union's Web site at www.theunion.com.

Here's the background:

According to the minutes of the June 8, 2004, meeting: "Supervisor Horne indicated that she reviewed all the remaining applications and believed that Ms. Kathleen Smith met the criteria and the experience for this position. Motion made by Supervisor Horne, seconded by Supervisor Sutherland, to select Ms. Kathleen Smith to fill Lorraine Jewett-Burdick's position.

"Supervisor Horne believed (Smith's experience and voter support) spoke volumes about impartiality and professionalism and the commitment to doing the job to the best of her ability in representing all of the voters of that jurisdiction."

The vote was 3-1 to appoint Smith, a former clerk for the Placer County Water Agency. Smith "declined to state" her party affiliation but is a conservative, according to Republicans who know her.

It was a contentious debate.

As our paper said on June 9, 2004: "District 1 Supervisor Peter Van Zant broke a potential deadlock on the Nevada County Board of Supervisors Tuesday by giving them a 'gracious vote' to select Kathleen Smith as the interim county recorder-clerk. Van Zant explained his decision to the board saying: This appointment is going to be your appointment. Your choice is not my first choice, but I am going to support it."

Supervisors Van Zant and Barbara Green both had favored appointing Assistant Clerk-Recorder Joy Massey, who had more local experience. According to the minutes, Van Zant "hoped the outcome (of appointing Smith) turns out well."

Oh, well, so much for being gracious.



A 'gracious' vote

Smith was appointed after the board reversed an earlier decision to offer the job to former county Supervisor Fran Freedle. They backed off because Freedle's name had been rejected by search committees who were vetting nominees. In addition, some residents complained that Freedle's strong ties to the Republican Party would bring her credibility into question in an election year.

Horne is the only supervisor still on the board. She called Smith's dual jobs "pretty amazing."

As for Smith's performance, I guess hindsight is 20/20. Horne told reporter Dave Moller on Friday that Smith was a good interview and seemed qualified.

On the current board, I wondered about Supervisor Ted Owens remarks in the paper on Friday. "We don't spend time overlooking the elected officials just like we don't question judge's decisions," he said.

Is that another joke, Ted? Smith is paid by the county, you and the board oversee her budget, and board members have met with her as recently as last week. By contrast, judges work for the state. On a side note, it's also OK to question a judge's decision once in a while - when the county loses a lawsuit and you want to appeal, for example. (If what you meant to say is that an elected official such as Smith is not a county staffer, just like a judge is not, I do get that. Sorry for any misunderstanding).

As for oversight, we understand that Smith is an elected official, giving her significant autonomy, but this kind of behavior is ridiculous. It comes on top of repeated complaints about Smith's handling of elections, which soon will be the focus of a grand jury report. At least the board has been responsive; the office of the state attorney general has yet to call us back on the matter.

We need to hold our public officials accountable - but also ourselves as voters. Last June, voters elected Smith to office until January 2011. The incumbent edged out her opponent, Greg Diaz, by 1,000 votes or so.

Many residents contend Diaz lost because his "negatives" were worse: a "flatlander" who wasn't the incumbent (at least Smith harped on this). Some of them contend that Diaz' ethnicity cost him votes - a swipe at our county's lack of diversity.

"Wonder bread," as one resident has put it.

Now the decision to appoint Smith's replacement is up to the board again, not the voters.

Let's hope the board's solution is a competent, ethical clerk-recorder. In addition, let's hope that county and state officials work more closely together to tighten any policies that give rise to lax oversight of elected public officials, such as Smith. This shouldn't happen again. As we've written repeatedly, the "silo" mentality in government continues to run rampant.

<i>Jeff Pelline is the editor of The Union. His column appears on Saturdays. Contact him at 477-4235, jeffp@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.</i>