The direction this selection process or better yet the reaction to it is disturbing.
What I have issue with is that it appears that a single spokesperson/ blogger is now trying to subvert the review process.
A single person with a blog cannot "subvert" anything in city government. I may write something on the blog that will prompt others to take action. Other times, I'll write something that people will mostly ignore. But the blog alone isn't going to do anything. I'm flattered that you are telling people that I am somehow more powerful
than city government itself, but it's quite a stretch and not exactly logical.
I'm all for transparency when selecting candidates and the process in general.
Then you should be upset at the complete lack of transparency
in the city manager search process. City officials claimed that they were using the same process they used in 2009 to select Matt Horn, but that turned out to be a lie. Dozens of cities publicly release the names of candidates, and many even hold public forums introducing the candidates to the people they will serve. Yet Geneva city council chose to go in the opposite direction.
And if you're "all for transparency," then you should be pleased that the process has been made more transparent, thanks to a handful of sources close to the search.
Or maybe you're not as much of a supporter of transparency as you think you are.
What appears to be happening now is an attempt to circumvent the selection process.
No, it's an attempt to circumvent unnecessary secrecy in city government.
People were concerned for months about the lack of transparency because such a secretive process could end up elevating candidates that would not serve the best interests of the entire city.
And that's exactly what happened.
We have a representative democracy. You elect people to make the everyday decisions and handle the business of government.
In a democracy we elect people, and then we hold them accountable, publicly
. What do you suggest, that citizens should do nothing when they think their representatives aren't doing their jobs? We should just sit back and say nothing until the next election?
Voting is only one small part of a democracy. Being an engaged citizen involves more than just voting every year or two or four.
I guess the rule now is if you don't like the way elected officials make decisions you overrule them with social media campaigns.
Social media is ubiquitous in the political life in America. If elected officials are being unnecessarily secretive or are making decisions that could harm people, then the people should use a tool such as social media to let their voices be heard.
Plus, there's no guarantee that elected officials will even respond to public pushback, either, so the idea that a social media campaign can "overrule" government decisions makes no sense.
While being a watchdog is great there is that small step to becoming the non-elected authority. It's a temptation that we all should be aware of and avoid.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Holding government accountable, even when it involves leaked information, is the duty
of every citizen. Issuing this kind of bizarre and vague warning serves no purpose other than put the watchdog under suspicion, rather than discussing the facts that have been exposed.
There is a big difference between whistle-blowing (alerting the public after going through official channels of a REAL wrong doing or some threat to public safety) and leaking (the passing along of information in the hope to affect the outcome of what in many cases is a legal process).
Not really a "big" difference, if any difference at all. Plus I'm not sure where you came up with your definition of "leaking," but it's spurious at best, and implies ulterior or selfish motives for anyone who leaks information. Sure, leaks can sometimes be motivated by malice, but in this case, it's precisely the opposite.
Would you like to talk about Martin Murphy and Rick Finn? Or are you only interested in talking about a blogger?
This isn't campaigning at all. It's hi-jacking of the committee review process thinly veiled as a cry for transparency.
From the beginning of the city manager search process, Geneva Believer has called out city council for a lack of transparency, every step of the way
. City councilors responded by assuring everyone that the process was fair and that it would result in the best available city manager for Geneva.
Do you think that, after a nationwide search, Rick Finn and Martin Murphy are actually the two best possible candidates
for the job?
The recruitment for this job was very public and the committee list was not secret information.
The posting of the job was very public.
The fact that the committee was being selected was, indeed
, "secret information," as the city didn't publicly announce they were even forming a committee until the committee's roster was nearly completed.
At some point do we hire a City Manager by public direct vote?? Seriously?
What are you talking about?
Nobody has ever suggested that.
At what point do you let the folks you elected do what they were elected for?
Again, this philosophy of "they were elected, let them do their job" is another way of saying "the public shouldn't be holding elected officials accountable except by voting and they need to shut up." That's not participatory democracy. In fact, I'd offer that it's completely undemocratic.
Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.
I'll give you credit for trying very hard to paint this whole situation as some kind of scary and undemocratic hijacking of a city government process.
But really, why are you talking so much about a blog and about whisteblowing and leaking and everything EXCEPT the candidates in the city manager search?
Two candidates were named, and both have a long list of serious allegations in their past. The front runner, Rick Finn, left every city manager job he has ever held under a cloud of controversy, with accusations of harassment, discrimination, misconduct and racism throughout his career, including lawsuits. Martin Murphy had accusations of financial misconduct and was forced to resign his last city manager job in Oneonta due to allegations of mistreatment of city employees.
Hiring a city manager with the credentials of Finn or Murphy is not okay for Geneva.
Matt Horn was city manager for nine years, and even though I'm not a fan of Horn, he was never accused of mistreating employees, discrimination, or racism.
As far as the idea that Geneva Believer was "campaigning" for Sage Gerling, I suggest you read the blog articles in the order they were written.
There were three candidates in the running: Finn, Murphy and Sage Gerling. Yes, I voiced my support and encouraged others to voice their support for Sage, too. But mostly because the other two candidates were absolutely awful
compared to Gerling, but also because Gerling is an excellent candidate and as the interim manager, should have been considered the front-runner the moment she submitted her application.
Here is a link to all of Geneva Believer's coverage of the city manager search since April: Geneva City Manager Search on Geneva Believer