Re: [Mpls] Rybak's and McManus's Management Style: All Flash and No Substance?

[Jhpalmerjp]

>>I think Lubinski was equal - or better in qualifications to McManus.<<<   This is one of the argument's I don't understand, and please post some links or info about this so that I and others can understand.  Lubinksi is very qualified and has done a lot, but I don't understand how you and others have gotten to the point of "equal" or "better" in regards to her and I would honestly like to know where it is that she equals or outdistances McManus.  She's been in law enforcement since 1978 but that was in Wisconsin and it was the Sheriff's Dept.  She joined MPD in 1988.  Where as McManus has been an police officer since 1975, working his way up to Assistant Chief in 1998 in DC and became Chief in Dayton in 2001.  So McManus has been in Law Enforcement longer, he's been a police officer longer and he's been an Assistant Chief longer.  And he's the only one of the two who's been Chief.  I would really like to know how one gets to equal or greater.    >>I also appreciate that she had the courage to be out as a police officer. <<   This is something that you and I agree.  In fact, this is one of the areas that Lubinski arguably outdistances other candidates and officers.  It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do this, it breaks down barriers and helps to improve relations between MPD and the GLBT community as well as fosters greater acceptance of the GLBT community and diversity as a whole concept both in the MPD and in Minneapolis.  It makes her a huge leader and community figure, even hero in my mind.  No question at all.   What it doesn't do is make her a better police officer, chief candidate, or more qualified to lead the department, and again that's the question on the table.   >>We'll just have to agree to disagree, Jonathan, I still think Laux is a red herring.  Sharon Lubinski and John Laux are very different people. <<<<   They are, but this was my point before about reducing the argument to being internal vs. external.  If someone is going to advance the internal vs. external argument, especially if they're saying that an internal candidate is better because they're internal, then you have to consider Laux.  I have always said that that argument is in itself a red herring, and the real question is judging the persons on their own merits and skills.  And from what I see, McManus is the better candidate. >>>I think Mark's statements are subjective - and yours are too.  I don't think he's lying because he interprets articles differently than you do.<<   I don't think he's lying either and didn't say that, but rather that his statements are inaccurate, and I think it's more than just interpreting differently.  That's my opinion, but I can't find anything that I think could substantially be interpreted that way.  On reevaluation, even Mark said it was slim.  It does exist in the realm of possibility, but so does the premise that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the US, there's just not a lot of support for either. >>True.....  But as I understand it, 7 votes (or maybe 8 according to Channel 5) are needed for confirmation.<<   Which is again why I think you keep missing the points I'm making, which was that McManus had impressed so many people including the Mayor and 6 Council Members, many of which were against a straight White male or an outsider at the start, that they agree that McManus is the best.  Some of the 7 had made up their minds before even meeting McManus.  The bottom line is to be open to exploring all possibilities as well as keeping focussed on the actual question and issue: Can McManus do the job?   I say yes.   Jonathan Palmer Victory