2) What purpose would it serve? Monday-morning
> quarterbacking by people who didn't sit through the interviews, didn't
> review the qualifications of the individuals, and who don't know the
> duties
> of the job? So what if the guy, in his 19 years of public finance work,
> worked on some stadiums. I bet there isn't a single credible candidate
> who
> wouldn't have something in their background that someone would object to.
> The question is whether the person has the skills to do the job.
>
> And Kathy O'Brien is the most capable administrator I have met in my
> entire
> career in public service. And I have met a lot.
>
I feel a need to respond to this. Like Mr. Connolly, I feel a deep
cynicism about the way that the city government functions. I also am
unhappy about the fact that various levels of government keep on trying to
shove another stadium down the throats of the citizens of Minneapolis and
in general try to construct it as a place of pleasure for non-residents.
But more significantly, I'm a little disturbed by some of the implications
of Mrs. Becker's positions. There may be a legitimate position to say that
Mr. Born is a decent fellow and that Kathy O'Brien is a very good
administrator. One can even say that the critiques are wrong... perhaps
they are. But there seems to be something going beyond that in the
language concerning 'monday morning quarterbacks' et al. that seems to be
saying that the critics should be minding our own business and letting the
administrators run things. I have to disagree with that. We have the
right and duty to criticize those making decisions for us because we are
citizens (I apologise for the self-aggrandizing, civics lesson feel of this
statement.) and we (at least should) live in a city that decisions are made
on a basis that we are the ultimate arbiters of those decisions. To put it
bluntly, Minneapolis should be a city made up of its citizens not its
administrators. In the years of activism, I've been repeatedly told that I
can't have an opinion in any number of subjects on the premise that I am
not an 'expert' on the subject. Who precisely are these 'expert' guardians
who act without interests except those that are of the general good that
are not to be questioned? I think it is perfectly reasonable to be
suspicious of a council that has repeatedly tried to sell different
versions of a stadium to a hostile public. I also think it is perfectly
reasonable to be suspicious of the fact that they hired an individual for
Finance Officer that is highly involved in stadium politics. Perhaps these
issues will play out to naught, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a
reason to be wary.
Robert Wood a somewhat rambling anti-authoritarian marxist/ green party
member.... St. Paul resident who works at and attends the university of
minnesota
