Chairman of the board.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Lane County commissioners made the right choice Wednesday in selecting Faye Stewart for a second term as board chairman, despite Peter Sorenson's claims that he was denied the post as payback for his opposition to the income tax that was enacted by a board majority last year and then whacked by voters.

Sorenson argued that the board should have followed its custom of rotating the gavel among the board's five members. But the commissioners have departed from this non-binding tradition in the past and will again whenever there is a three-vote majority in favor of doing so.

There is an appealing logic to rotating the leadership. It enables people who live in each of the county's five districts to have a chance to wield the gavel, and it promotes collegiality on a board where that quality is too often in short supply.

But there's nothing in the county charter that bars commissioners from picking any board member as the leader whenever and as often as they please. Three votes makes a majority on the county board, whether Sorenson likes it or not.

In the past, commissioners have excluded board members from the rotation for a variety of reasons.

Former South Lane Commissioner Jerry Rust was frozen out for years because a conservative board majority disliked his progressive views on forest-related issues and other topics. At times, commissioners have formed anti-rural and anti-urban coalitions aimed at protecting their respective interests, although they rarely have been forthright about doing so.

In the case of Sorenson, several factors were involved, including, yes, the South Lane commissioner's opposition to the short-lived income tax.

Actually, it wasn't Sorenson's opposition to the tax that rankled the board majority as much as the opportunistic manner in which he expressed it. Sorenson downplayed the debilitating budget crisis that the tax was intended to address and often suggested that he, unlike the board majority that was desperately trying to preserve law enforcement and other core public services, was looking out for the best interests of taxpayers.

There are other compelling reasons why commissioners decided not to choose Sorenson. They include his refusal as board chairman in 2000 to sign a letter, approved by a board majority, opposing a Clinton administration proposal to ban road construction on 43 million acres of national forest.

Even though many of Sorenson's constituents agreed with his position on the roadless plan, as did this newspaper, members of the board majority that approved the document had every right to expect Sorenson, as chairman, to sign it on their behalf. By not doing so, he served notice that he would be willing to put his personal views ahead of those of the board majority in the future. That's a defensible, even admirable practice, for an individual member of a governing board - but not its chairman.

In Stewart, the board chose a chairman who since coming to the board in 2004 has demonstrated an impressive capacity for learning and leadership. He has worked respectfully and inclusively with all of his fellow commissioners, regardless of their political views. As board chairman during an extraordinarily challenging past year, he demonstrated his ability to hold steady in gale-force political winds and to work effectively with Eugene, Springfield and other local governments.

Finally, it's worth noting that the county board chairmanship is hardly a holy grail. The chairman sets agendas, runs meetings and occasionally speaks for the board, but the position is largely ceremonial. Unlike a committee leader in the state Legislature who wields the power to make or break bills, the head of the county board lacks the ability to keep fellow board members from bringing their proposals to the floor.

Sorenson should remember that he and Stewart will have exactly one vote apiece in 2008 - just as they had Wednesday when the board chose its new chairman.