Wednesday, August 7, 2002
|
Wednesday, August 7, 2002 |
|
Time short for mayor to prove he can govern city Let me state up front that I voted for Steve Brown. His interest and enthusiasm contrasted sharply with what I saw as a self-serving incumbent "club" that addressed its special interests when making their decisions. He had a prime opportunity to build from his strong mandate and bring the citizens and council together to improve how city government was run. Regrettably, I now wonder if I made the right choice. Is he capable of growing into the role of mayor, or is he proving himself not up to the task? Good intentions, if I give him the benefit of a doubt, are not enough. In your paper I have read of numerous instances where the mayor has excluded other members of council from deliberations, introduced items on the agenda with insufficient (if any) staff or committee review, and otherwise failed to follow established and necessary practices of good government. Examples include the moratorium on development, the dog park, and [he] deliberately excluded select council members from discussion of issues. For me, the final straw was his recent criticism of the city attorney in this paper. It certainly falls within the authority of the city council to dismiss the city attorney at any time. It need not be for cause; if council feels an attorney can no longer best meet their needs, that is sufficient. That said, it is utterly unprofessional to use the press to air personal grievances. This is even more egregious when one realizes that professional ethics prevents the city attorney from responding publicly, making the mayor's behavior both childlike and bullying. I am genuinely hopeful that Steve Brown will use the remainder of his term to live up to the vision he presented to those of us disenchanted with the way the city was headed. The alternative is too dispiriting to discuss further. Steve Bradley cdrbradley@hotmail.com
|
||