Publisher's Note: This article (like most of our other articles) reflects the view of the writer only, not necessarily of this magazine or the publishing team.

Constitutional officer, n.
1. A government position that is created by the constitution, not by subsequent laws or statutes.
2. In Arkansas, one of seven elected officials, including governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and land commissioner.
3. A statewide officer whose duties really aren’t all that important (except for those of the governor and attorney general) and should probably be consolidated so government can run more smoothly.

Last month’s brouhaha over state vehicles cast the spotlight on Arkansas’ constitutional officers -- a spotlight most of them probably wished they could have avoided. Most of them had to admit, embarrassingly, that they had failed to pay taxes on personal use of their state-owned vehicles. A couple of them made outrageous comments to the press that required further contrition. A lot of citizens are hopping mad over how arrogant and out of touch their statewide officials now seem.

It’s time, however, that we shine the light on a different aspect of our constitutional officers. Namely, how necessary are their positions?

I'm going to suggest that the number of constitutional officers should be reduced from 7 to 2 (or maybe 3). Cut the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and land commissioner. That leaves us with just the governor and attorney general.

That suggestion isn’t new (columnist John Brummett of Stephens Media has argued for it for years), and it isn’t quite as earth-shattering as it may first appear, either. After all, the duties of those five offices still have to be done by someone, right? I'm not advocating cutting the jobs, just the offices. The duties of these officials could mainly be done within the executive branch.

I'm proposing a system where the “political” positions (those that directly affect policy) are elected and the non-political positions are appointed. The governor is definitely a political job because the governor sets policy for the entire state, to some extent. The attorney general can also be considered a political job because the AG plays a big role in interpreting and enforcing policy.

But let’s take the auditor -- the state accountant, basically. Why is it necessary to hold elections to decide who the next auditor is? Just let the governor pick some insanely talented (and scrupulous) accountant, and be done with it. Same thing goes for the treasurer and land commissioner.

You might think the lieutenant governor has something to do with creating policy. He does, but that’s not really his job -- it’s just what he’s allowed to do on the side. Bill Halter’s only constitutional duties are to preside over the Senate and to fill in for Beebe if he travels outside the state or becomes incapacitated. Because those duties don’t take much time, it’s generally expected that a lieutenant governor will spend his extra time lobbying for something he feels is important. In 2008, Halter organized the ballot initiative for a statewide lottery. But all he can do is organize and lobby. He can’t create policy.

The secretary of state has a lot of responsibilities, most of which are so minor that they’re not worth our attention. His two most important duties are overseeing elections and providing business services. These tasks could easily be put within the executive branch and under the governor’s purview.

But wait a second, you say. When we get rid of all these elected offices, aren’t we putting a lot on the governor’s plate? What if we don’t want him to have any more power than he already does?

It’s a valid question. But consolidating these positions within the executive branch wouldn’t give the governor any more power over policy than he already has. These five offices (lieutenant governor excepted) are administrative, not political -- when you’re keeping track of the state’s finances, it doesn’t make a difference what party you belong to or what your stance on the Second Amendment is. Let’s allow our chief executive to appoint -- and, if necessary, to fire -- people in these positions.

But will we reduce government accountability by having these officials appointed rather than elected? Actually, officials will be more accountable. Rather than answering every four years to an electorate who has little understanding of the job requirements and how well they fulfill them, they’ll have to answer to a CEO who has the power to take away their jobs at any time. The governor would also be able to hire people for the jobs based on merit, rather than the job going to the best politician who decides to run.

For example, this year State Representative Monty Davenport was term-limited in the House, so he decided to run for land commissioner. When asked why he was running for the office, he responded that he had to leave the House and this position was open. He had no ideas for the office beyond that it was a good opportunity to keep a high-profile government job. Davenport (thankfully) lost his primary, but he’s still a perfect example of political opportunism in seeking a constitutional office. Have the governor appoint the positions, and we stand a better chance of having officials who actually possess expertise and ideas.

Then, when our state officials do something unethical or say something embarrassing, guess who would ultimately be responsible? The governor -- the highest-profile politician in the state and the one who is most accountable to the people. Pressure from voters and concern for his image would give the governor a strong incentive to sack officials like Mark Wilcox (see the Autogate story for more info on Wilcox’s transgressions) and start afresh with a more scrupulous person.

This is a change the state needs to make, so that it runs more cleanly and efficiently. Let’s amend the Arkansas constitution and eliminate unnecessary constitutional offices. It’s the right call for progress in our state government.

The Roles They Play

Lieutenant Governor - The Cheerleader
Current officeholder: Bill Halter
Duties: The lieutenant governor can assume the duties of governor if the governor travels outside the state or becomes incapacitated. He also becomes the new governor if the governor dies. He presides over the Senate and can cast the deciding vote in the (very unlikely) event of a tie. Traditionally, lieutenant governors also use the position to “cheer on” economic issues that they feel are important. Halter, for example, used his bully pulpit to push the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery in 2008.
What Should Happen: It would actually be fine to keep this position, but rather than having a separate election for it, let the gubernatorial candidates pick running mates, like presidential candidates do. Most of the other states already do this. Having a lieutenant who is hand-picked by the governor allows both officers to become more effective.

Land Commissioner - The Auctioneer
Current officeholder: Mark Wilcox
Duties: The main job of the land commissioner is to collect and manage tax-delinquent property for the state. Then his office tries to get the original owner to pay the taxes and recover the land. If that doesn’t happen, the land commissioner sells the land at auction.
What Should Happen: Get rid of the office and let the governor appoint a qualified expert to do the job.

Treasurer - The Banker
Current officeholder: Martha Shoffner
Duties: The treasurer’s office essentially is the state bank, and she’s responsible for accepting deposits, reconciling accounts, all that good banker stuff. The treasurer also handles getting state financial aid into the hands of local governments.
What Should Happen: Get rid of the office and let the governor appoint a qualified expert to do the job.