 By Gavin Piercy November 17, 2006
My question is this: Where is the precedent of a government ever willing simplifying itself? Where is the guarantee that such simplification will occur? Why aren't things like "The positions of Borough and City Manager will be dissolved and replaced by a singe position of Ketchikan Municipality Manager" part of the proposal to be voted on? Perhaps because of contract obligations? Perhaps because said positions are too politically influential? I don't pretend to know. What I do know is the likelihood that a unified government of the 2 bodies will not likely lead to simplification. If the ballot measure included such deletions of positions, and redundancies, if the details of the consolidated government in an executable plan were completely presented to be voted on along with the issue of consolidation (and not as Debby Otte put it a "a feasibility exercise") and if it were possible to revert to the current situation should consolidation turn out to be a fiasco (as many who claim expertise on the issue insist) then perhaps I would be voting yes on consolidation, because then, at least I would know what yes vote would mean. As it stands, a vote for consolidation is a vote for a "feasibility exercise" from which there is no return. I am afraid that with all the
ambiguity, I'm going to "stick to the Devil I know."
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
|