City politics lacking
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
City politics appears to leave a little to be desired if its processes are not (or cannot be) understood by the population it represents, in general.
Exactly, by what process, are city council agenda items actually put on the agenda; at the city manager’s discretion? Really? One individual holds the final say? Who died and left him in charge? Why do we even need a mayor or council members, if the city manager has the final say and can dismiss the public’s interests, blow off the mayor and council members at will outside of open meeting rules?
It seems to me that local government serves at the pleasure of the public and that there are parliamentary rules governing its behavior. If the public decides that an individual in city government is not discharging their duties properly, there must be a process by which said public can dismiss or recall this official, and I don’t believe any city manager has the jurisdictional right to declare that an issue of this nature is a “personal matter” and not open to public review through the meeting agenda process. How ludicrous.
The public holds the right to review the performance of all public officials and to retain, through vote or contract, those who are achieving the desired goals or release those who fail to perform.
There’s nothing personal about it; it’s a process that exists in every business in the United States and it is not “personal,” it is a functional and necessary event – the “annual performance appraisal.”
So, what’s the process for removing a city attorney, on contract, who is perceived by the populace as an underachiever?
I’m guessing that the Polson city manager doesn’t believe a petition with signatures from his constituents asking for the issue to be added to the city council meeting agenda is it.
So what is the process, Mr. City Manager, if not the voice of the people, by whose pleasure you all serve?
Michael Gale
Ronan
