Here Here! Jim is dead on the mark with this post. Craig Miller Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm sure I'm not the first person to have this thought, but I thinkt he city has to start seriously tying our core needs with our core revenues, something an outside and hostile political grouping cannot deny us. Of course, that also means that extraordinary expenditures must be so constructed as to weather temporary economic hard times. A household would think this way, and I think the time has come for the city to do so also. We've heard some fretting about getting sued because we made lavish plans when we thought the flow of money was insured. That is a good point, but not the way it was presented. We have to consider the RISKS of these plans and never create a legal exposure due to interruptions in income. With homes, that is guaranteed by protections built into our laws. But as a city, we need to insure the protection on each contract we consider. If a potential contractor will not settle on that, we should never HINT that we would do business with them. We have ! > a risk management department, but it has to start doing its job better. > > And candidates for city elective office have to be cornered on these quesitons. We've been remiss as voters in considering that we elect charming but careless people to office. > > > -------------- > Jim Mork--Cooper TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
