The presumption is that city staff possess all the right values; and have knowledge that is more relevant for purposes of decision-making than city council members.
But if the Greensboro City Council cannot be empowered to set policy on behalf of citizens, then why do we even bother having such an elective body? That is the unstated premise we are supposed to accept-- that council should not set policy in a manner that contradicts what city staff recommends, and that council should simply be deferential toward staff.
This is yet another example of agenda-driven news coverage (unposted, front page article in today's N&R).
"This is yet another example of agenda-driven news coverage (unposted, front page article in today's N&R)."
It's rare that they miss a day of agenda-driven coverage. On some days, there are multiple examples of that sort of thing.
I'm surprised no one has started a blog to specifically call them out on their numerous abuses of the public trust.
Posted by: Bubba | June 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM
As professor Dr Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) in Ghostbusters commented years ago upon receiving the word he was being fired by the college administration: "....I've worked in the private sector, they expect results."
Some of the beau....crats are feeling the heat. Revenues not there. Time to make the tough decisions. Council ain't accepting the "dance around the matter" answers anymore. It's not the Council of the last term. Got some business people who want answers and want it now.
Dr Wade grilled Danish pretty aggressively, and the matter deserved it. That's what a board of directors, in this case City Council, is supposed to do get the answers and drill down further if necessary. This Council, unlike the "we need to get along" former one, asks some penetrating questions. Good for them, and the City is better for it.
These beau...crats aren't used to it and many are unable to take the pressure.
Posted by: Harold | June 26, 2011 at 02:51 PM
The message is clear: conservatives can't govern and everything they do is wrong. From the N&R to Ed Cone's blog, that narrative has been consistent. We're not supposed to see through it.
I remember the good old days of the Democrat controlled City Council and Mitch Johnson. What stellar levels of competence were on display then.
Posted by: Spag | June 26, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Bubba, I agree with your comment overall; but responding to everything in the local media would be, indeed, a full-time job.
Harold, there were problems with Rita Danish's performance. She elected to leave because she correctly perceived that the ground rules had changed, and that she would be more accountable to the city council. No big deal-- we are better off. A fellow named Mike Baron might have some things to say about the water director who just designed. Mike was fired because he was advocating strongly for a water conservation program that was working; that decreased water revenues for the city; and that would have also decreased the perceived need for the Randleman Dam. Water revenues are a BIG deal for city staff.
Sam, you are right. Let's think about the decisions made under people like Yvonne Johnson and Keith Holliday and Robbie Perkins and Mitch Johnson-- Project Homestead, the GPD fiasco, the closing of the White Street Landfill. These were all disastrous for our city.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 26, 2011 at 05:28 PM
Ah Joe, now you're just being unreasonable and less-than-progressive. It's not like water conservation is a environmentally-friendly thing to do.
It's "ancient history" . . . so Ed Cone and his good-blogging-buddies-of-the-stinking-kind were totally justified in styling Mike as "criminally-insane".
Mr. Baron is just supposed to "get over" what the noble City of Greensboro did to him and his career . . . while high-minded Mr. Cone-of-the-Cones happily walks his dog downtown.
No biggie.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | June 26, 2011 at 06:17 PM
Mary, this is important to discuss because the water director is now being portrayed, somehow, as a victim; or as someone whose preferences somehow should trump those expressed by elected city council members. But think about what happened to Mike Baron.
The bottom line is water revenues.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 26, 2011 at 06:20 PM
The Council is elected-the staff is not. The Council is responsible to the people - the staff is not. I think when a new Council comes in -they need to weed out staff and hire people who do what the Council asks. Is this too simple? Isn't this just common sense?
Posted by: Joanne Wittenborn | June 27, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Of course it is, Joanne. The embrace of city staff is politically calculated by those on the left and the media because they recognize that, more often than not, staff are their compatriots ideologically and from the standpoint of policy.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 28, 2011 at 07:07 AM