Steven Falk had some good points. Reforms are needed. His proposals should be considered.
But there are limitations to his suggestions that he doesn’t fully acknowledge in the OpEd:
1. It seems to absolve the current and former leaders of responsibility for the poor decisions that led to this state. They are responsible no matter what the …
Steven Falk had some good points. Reforms are needed. His proposals should be considered.
But there are limitations to his suggestions that he doesn’t fully acknowledge in the OpEd:
1. It seems to absolve the current and former leaders of responsibility for the poor decisions that led to this state. They are responsible no matter what the structural issues were. In fact, he implicitly acknowledges this responsibility, but most readers will miss that.
2. The proposals imply that our city leadership is so incompetent and so corrupted—and will be in the future—that they can only be dealt with by imposing a benevolent dictatorship. I can’t say that he’s wrong, but I also wonder if it must be so. Are we permanently sentenced to electing the incompetent and corrupted?
3. He doesn’t acknowledge or address the deepest corruption of all, that elected leaders are funded by the public employee unions that they negotiate contracts with in closed door sessions. You could even say that the city is funding the political activities of unions because they come from the dues paid by employees out of their city wages. So long as this corruption continues, the city will continue to serve employees as its prime objective, rather than serving the needs of residents. This situation was on plain display in December’s budget decisions.
Steven Falk had some good points. Reforms are needed. His proposals should be considered.
But there are limitations to his suggestions that he doesn’t fully acknowledge in the OpEd:
1. It seems to absolve the current and former leaders of responsibility for the poor decisions that led to this state. They are responsible no matter what the structural issues were. In fact, he implicitly acknowledges this responsibility, but most readers will miss that.
2. The proposals imply that our city leadership is so incompetent and so corrupted—and will be in the future—that they can only be dealt with by imposing a benevolent dictatorship. I can’t say that he’s wrong, but I also wonder if it must be so. Are we permanently sentenced to electing the incompetent and corrupted?
3. He doesn’t acknowledge or address the deepest corruption of all, that elected leaders are funded by the public employee unions that they negotiate contracts with in closed door sessions. You could even say that the city is funding the political activities of unions because they come from the dues paid by employees out of their city wages. So long as this corruption continues, the city will continue to serve employees as its prime objective, rather than serving the needs of residents. This situation was on plain display in December’s budget decisions.