Some local citizens, including one former Marquette County Commissioner, have recently suggested the idea of dissolving the Marquette County Road Commission, handing the responsibility of governing the county’s road and transportation system over to the Marquette County Board.

The county board currently appoints the five-member road commission board to six-year terms. The road commission board is responsible for carrying out the duties imposed by state law and the county board.

Proponents of the idea question whether the road commission board may have violated the Open Meetings Act, at least in spirit, in its January decision to the sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its wetlands remediation-related objection to permits being issued to build County Road 595.

The January decision was made after a closed session with attorneys, with some members of the public convinced the outcome may have been predetermined.

These proponents – who are opposed to the County Road 595 project – said Michigan is the only state with road commissions and some counties have already shifted road commission responsibilities to their respective county boards.

While we respect the right of these citizens to offer their ideas, and we welcome those offerings, we don’t think this is an idea whose time has come.

Is there truly great concern over allegations of Open Meetings Act violations or is the great concern more about opposition to the road commission’s continuing efforts to permit and build County Road 595?

If there are legitimate reasons to conclude the road commission board may have violated the act, those concerns should be investigated. Members could be replaced, if necessary. However, we don’t agree the road commission should be dissolved, whether through a vote of the county’s populace, or otherwise.

In addition to the public, we understand there are differences of opinion between some members of the road commission and county boards on pursuing the lawsuit and its funding through a private non-profit corporation. That’s fine. Those varying viewpoints are healthy for democracy and our governing boards.

However, we think granting the road commission’s responsibilities to the county board would cause more problems than it would solve. We also think the road commission and its board does a great job, especially given the agency’s limited financial resources.

Of Michigan’s 83 counties, only five – Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Macomb and Wayne – have merged their road commissions with their county boards. The remaining counties have a mixture of elected or appointed road commission boards. Statewide, beyond the five counties without road commissions, 27 counties have three-member appointed road commission boards; 26 have three-member elected boards; 15 have five-member appointed boards and 10 have five-member elected boards.

In the U.P., Marquette and Gogebic counties have five-member appointed road commission boards; Ontonagon, Houghton, Baraga, Dickinson, Luce and Chippewa counties have three-member appointed boards; Alger, Keweenaw, Menominee, Schoolcraft and Mackinac counties have three-member elected boards, while Delta and Iron counties have five-member elected boards.

Our local road commissions are important to the communities they serve and their boards, elected or appointed, provide panels focused on road issues, rather than the generalized, broader concerns of county boards.

We need to keep our Marquette County Road Commission, especially at a time when crumbling roads and funding for repairs are becoming bigger issues every day.

Those who want to dissolve the road commission board might have presented a relatively novel idea, but we don’t think it’s in the county’s best interest.