Hey, that 'splains it!

I kept wondering why the push for a city manager. I mean, not only will it cost money to even vote on the issue, but none of the arguments are strong enough to demand the change now. We are in a fiscal crisis, but Mr. Plunkett feels the need to spend time pushing a change in government. (In fact he already nominated a person for the position in a letter to the papers, without telling that person, and while that person was out of town. Stay classy Michael.)

Removing the strong mayor reduces tax payer’s direct representation while empowering an already fractious and divided city council. It demands more money for salary from a position that is often held for less time than a four year mayoral term leading to more turnover and less continuity. The city manager is often hired from outside while the mayor must be a citizen who is directly affected by the council and the decisions that they make.

So why now? Why is our system failing us?

Turns out that it it isn’t. However the republican party had put forth to it’s minions to lead the charge to a city manager in cities that it does not think it has a chance to take and hold in future elections. Cue Jim Smith in Lynnwood and Michael Plunkett in Edmonds.

Hey, that explains why Mr. Plunkett says Lynnwood is exploring the idea, like it is the wave of the future.

Do your own research. www.mrsc.org is a great place to start. It is a Seattle based nonprofit dedicated to excellence in government. Search “strong mayor-council” and the “council-city manager” on google or yahoo to help determine your thoughts. Although I think the timing is horrible and misguided, chances are we will have to vote on this. (At least we only have to pay about $.50 a person to let our voices be heard) I think Edmonds will vote to keep their mayor, but at least Michael Plunkett can go back to his Republican sith lords and declare that he got it on the ballot.

Maybe this explains why Mr. Plunkett demands three to four public hearings on every other subject to hear from the voters fully what is on their minds, but is content to have but one on this dramatic, not very timely or relevant, and very much done for personal gains, subject.