Our founding fathers were incredible men.  It is difficult to comprehend the risks and sacrifices that they and their families endured for the sake of birthing a new nation.  Great men, surely with faults...but, great men!

Often times, I have found myself in the middle of discussions involving culture and multiculturalism.  Usually, with someone center-left on the political spectrum.  I marvel at their notion that we are a nation of multiple cultures, the proverbial melting pot.

Like a tiger separating the wounded gazelle from the herd, I pounce.  "What about our distinctly American culture?" I chime in.

Hilarity and bewilderment ensues as I am often given either a blank stare or the duo of "What American culture?" or "There is no American culture."

As an unabashed and unapologetic nationalist, I reject the moral and cultural relativists plaguing our country who refuse to recognize the supremacy of our distinct American culture rooted in individual freedom, capitalism and religious freedom and democracy.

And our democracy is framed within a system of checks and balances.  This system permeates nearly every facet of our government, allowing our branches to be independent and free to act within the confines of their own sphere of influence.  From the top to the bottom, our system protects order and prevents chaos.

I have always found this concept to be intriguing and incredibly fascinating.  As a fairly conservative person, especially on the fiscal side of the equation, and a true believer in smaller government, I have always marveled at how aggressively our founding fathers used this tool to prevent centralization of power of government, especially at the federal level.

When I hear Republicans praise and deify Abraham Lincoln for his "great" work, it always puts a disappointed smile on my face.  For Lincoln ushered in the era of "big government" with his destruction of our federalist system and removal of the states' ability to check the federal government.  Alas, a discussion for another day.

Please be patient with my lack of brevity, there is a method to my madness.

This week a grand jury report was released sharply criticizing the machinations of the Assessor's office.  The Assistant Assessor was also arrested on six felony counts.  A dark day for the county to be sure.

As often time is the case, our elected officials go into "react" mode.  And while I do not think there is a conscious belief that the average voter is ignorant on the part of our elected officials when they go into "react" mode, that is how I perceive it.  It is almost as if elected officials are ingrained with the notion that if they "appear" to be working on a solution, even if they offering up ideas that are not credible, effective or suitable, the voters will still give them credit.

I believe our elected officials are by definition required to behave in a proactive fashion.  They are supposed to spend their days planning and strategizing for the future.  Too often, we have "shotgun weddings" when an elected boldly trots out the quick fix for the problem that arises.  This "whack-a-mole" style of governance is second rate and counterproductive.

Take the latest proposal by Chairman Paul Biane that would require every staff member of each supervisor to be approved by 4/5 of the Board of Supervisors.

Republicans are quick to lament the rise of the nanny state, except when they themselves are the one purporting to be "Mommy Knows Best".  Surely, an elected supervisor should be competent enough to make hiring decisions for his own office.  And if for some reason he isn't competent or his hiring practices are deemed questionable, our government comes well equipped with the checks and balances needed to ameliorate the situation.

The elected official can be voted out of office or recalled.  And then there is the justice system.

In our culture, rooted in capitalism, the ultimate check on power is the notion that individuals are likely to do what is in their own best interests.  In light of the unfolding events surrounding the Assessor's office, it is in the best interests of elected officials to self-police their staff.

One of the cries of our founding fathers was "No taxation without representation!"  We elect supervisors by geographic district to represent us and they in turn hire individuals to represent them and advance their political priorities.

How dare my representation be usurped by elected officials who are not and cannot be held accountable by me or the other voters in my district!  The very notion is antithetical to the founding of this nation and I would question the constitutional legality of such a move.

Ultimately, if such an amendment to the Charter were to pass, the unintended consequences would inevitably be disastrous for embedded in this proposed solution to corruption and ethical lapses are the seeds that promote and encourage corruption.

This measure would stymie dissent and independent thought and lead to potential retaliatory and punitive actions against the minority.  At best, we are looking at the promotion of groupthink and conditions that encourage "moral-hazard" decision making.

Never mind the absurdity of turning staffing decisions into circus-like Supreme Court nomination hearings and the potential bureaucracy that would arise as a result.  Surely, prospective staffers would be given the opportunity to address those accusing them of being unfit for the job and be offered a venue with which they would be able to communicate their qualifications.

The most disheartening aspect of this proposed solution to ethical lapses in county governance is that it arose from the controversy in the Assessor's office.  However, this measure would have done nothing to prevent this matter from arising.  Further, this measure would not allow the Board of Supervisors to remove the Assistant Assessor from his position.

So, it begs the question: "What is the purpose of this proposed solution?"

Ostensibly, this measure arose out of the controversy regarding the arrest of the Assistant Assessor.  Yet, the measure does nothing to address that concern.  Curiously, Chairman Biane has not called for the resignation of the Assistant Assessor.

It is odd that the alleged actions of the Assistant Assessor would precipitate this measure in order to limit ethical lapses and county corruption, but not merit the condemnation from Chairman Biane.

We have learned that Chairman Biane initiated an inquiry on behalf of the Board of Supervisors into possible shenanigans in the Assessor's office.  This occurred last year.  Why then did it take a year to propose this measure?

In light of this measure, it is sort of peculiar that Chairman Biane would initiate this action without consulting with the other members of the board.

In closing, I applaud any and all attempts to root out corruption.  I just find this attempt to be contradictory to foundational philosophies of our democratic system.  Our system is filled with checks and balances and I believe we should allow them the opportunity to be utilized.