Thursday, July 19, 2007

What's Wrong With This Picture?

This letter that arrived in the NW's mailbox is peculiar -- to say the absolute least: someone from across the country chiming in to the local paper on an issue that couldn't possibly be more parochial and, not surprisingly, is entirely off base.

For your consideration:

Esslinger takes lead on getting council information

Thank you, (Councilor Paul) Esslinger, for expressing your concern about lack of information flow to the council.

Now if only the rest of the council would make (Community Development Director) Jackson Kinney and (City Manager) Richard Wollangk accountable for informing the entire council, as soon as pertinent information is received.

Today's situation about (Ben) Ganther and his problems is just the latest in a long string of situations that, over the years, never seem to shared with the council in a timely manner. Perhaps Mr. Kinney and Mr. Wollangk have been in their positions a little too long and their authority has gone to their heads. Whatever the reasons for not providing sufficient information to the entire council, it should be stopped immediately and those involved should be held accountable.

Frances Woldt Cottonwood, Ariz.

What a crock of shit!

First of all, why does the author seem to have the impression that Councilman Esslinger – and only Paul Esslinger! – has had a hand in calling for accountability? Did accountability suddenly become a controversial issue or something that requires an advanced degree (or relevant expertise) to implement?

Here’s some excerpts from last Sunday’s NW:

"It should be an expectation," said councilor Bryan Bain. "We've shown where information wasn't provided. We asked for changes to be made. Over time, it creates an impression that staff is trying to keep information from the council. When there's a perception like that, it's a problem."

And,

Councilor Jessica King said the problem should be discussed by councilors at their next meeting, but questions if that's sufficient.

"At what point do we go into closed session to review the role of the city manager?" King said. "When is 'enough is enough?'"

(emphasis added)

And here is Dennis McHugh taking the whole matter to a place it probably doesn’t need to go.


So what exactly does Ms. Francis Woldt of Cottonwood, Arizona mean when she says “Now if only the rest of the council would make (Community Development Director) Jackson Kinney and (City Manager) Richard Wollangk accountable for informing the entire council, as soon as pertinent information is received”?

It sound to me like a good chunk of council is plenty pissed off about the matter and is indeed looking for accountability…

Which leads me to my crackpot conspiracy theory of the day:

This letter has the manufactured feel of a letter used to promote a candidate running for office during election time and given some of the heat Esslinger’s gotten for his last epistle to the masses (my take on that lovely opus is here), I’m thinking the councilman was in need of a little good press. So he calls up an old friend or relative for a chat, explains the situation and then drops a few subtle hints about how someone really ought to get his back on this one and maybe drop the old Northwestern a line…

Obviously, this is idle conjecture – and it’s wild speculation at that. I can’t prove a goddamn thing, nor am I inclined to devote all that much time into doing so, but this letter is pure bullshit. If someone has to import their support from out of town, then maybe it’s time to follow the followers.

No comments: