Friday January 19, 2007

“A department director eager to keep his job would be mindful of which bidder was favored by a less-than-ethical mayor.” Michael Putney on the strong mayor proposal. That quote is the strongest reason to vote for the proposal, though you need to read his piece to get the full perspective. He does a really good job of looking at the issue from all sides, and finds fault with the commission, the mayor, and even the Herald’s handling of the issue. Best case scenario: reject the strong-mayor proposal, and form a panel to do an independent charter review and make a comprehensive set of recommendations, as Commissioner Katy Sorenson has called for. Update: Michael Lewis hammers pretty much the same point.

Tags: , , ,


comments powered by Disqus
  1. mkh    Fri Jan 19, 09:27 PM #  

    I don’t have time to read the piece at the moment, but are you saying that the potential for a department manager to pick a corrupt mayor’s favorite ahead of the best bidder in order to keep his job is a good thing?

  2. alesh    Fri Jan 19, 09:33 PM #  

    No. I’m saying that I’m starting to change my mind, and considering voting against the proposal. Oops if I wasn’t clear, but you should read it, because that’s really only one of several interesting points in the article, which starts out being more about why nobody seems to care about this issue.

  3. mkh    Sat Jan 20, 09:23 AM #  

    That is a good piece by Putney, now that I’ve slept and can focus again. Sorensen’s idea is great — too bad it’s too late for that. Maybe in 2017, after a decade of corrupt and inept strong mayors, someone will remember that proposal and try to actually fix the system.

    The part of all this that makes me the most uncomfortable is the money. Alvarez is spending a million bucks to make his own position more powerful. That just sounds wrong to me. If he believes in it that strongly, why not still fight for it, but have it take effect starting with the next elected mayor?