If this thread is an example of wing-nuttery, then he is the king of the wingnuts, because (a) he is the OP’er, and the OP is weak and (b) if disagreeing with someone’s opinion is enough to merit dismissing them as “wingnuts [who] come creeping out of the woodwork, right on cue, [to]to spew the most hilariously inane garbage of wingnut desperation,” then that applies to him as fittingly as it does anyone else, if you happen to disagree with him. Which I do.
This isn’t that hard, and it really doesn’t merit dissection into atomic particles. People disagreed with him; he was dismissive and derisive. I pointed out that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – if mere disagreement makes one a “wingnut” who spouts “garbage,” then that’s what he is. Don’t bother assuming anything different, or more nefarious, than that.
well, the reason we don’t know what books is she was never given a chance to make a list. She asked the librarian how she needed to go about banning some books, the librarian so she couldn’t…she fired the librarian. Public outcry…rehired the librarian and dropped the book banning thing.
it wasn’t a passing remark, she fired someone over it. Because she was shut down before she got to say what books doesn’t mean she didn’t have some in mind.
Salon has an excellent coverage. I’ve also read the articles from the Anchorage papers that appeared at the time (excerpted in Salon, full text through several databases, but can’t find them online)- this was well documented when it happened, including the firings and the “you know in your heart” when someone’s disloyal claims. The woman’s a nutcase who seems to have a long history of abusing power to settle real or imagined personal slights without qualm (e.g. her brother-in-law’s confidential personnel file, firing the librarian and the police chief [neither of which are usually done and I’d like to see a cite that they are- it’s not like the resignation and reappointment of a Cabinet]).
I never said anything about the librarian or police chief specifically; I was responding to the NYT quote, which says “The public works director, city planner, museum director and others” were “forced out.” Again, it is very common for executive-level adminstrators to be fired at a change of administration – and that includes department directors. There’s no cabinet at the local level, and even if there were, those people aren’t reappointed, they’re just fired (resignations asked for), period. Now, the article also says the police chief was “later fired outright,” but it doesn’t say why. If the police chief serves at the pleasure of the mayor (rare, but not unheard of), then he too would presumably be a department head who can be asked to leave if in the executive’s judgment he does not sufficiently support her or her agenda. If that is not the case, then it’s hard to see how she alone could summarily fire him without cause, as the NYT implies.
I’m a librarian, I serve on many committees and panel groups with any number of public librarians/museum directors/curators/archivists/etc. from all over the nation, most of them municipal employees. I have never known a single one to be asked to resign when a new mayor was elected. (Among other reasons, it can’t be that easy to find someone with the necessary qualifications in metro Anchorage.)
Police chiefs I don’t know about, but I know there are some Dopers in law enforcement. Is it common for them to be asked to resign when a mayoral change occurs?
Yes, sorry, didn’t explicitly say that it was simply an addition, not an explication. Figured that’d be obvious; sorry to’ve overestimated your intelligence. Won’t happen again.
As a fellow servant of the people,and one of the people, this philosophy of governance troubles me. The public should be able to be confident that public servants are chosen and retained on merit, not because of political influence and patronage. The idea that sending a city’s worth of prosecutorial, engineering, et al, talent out the door to be replaced by this year’s pet campaign supporter strikes me as foolish and symptomatic of a system that is more interested in awarding sycophants and campaign lackeys with jobs than providing quality services. Institutional memory is insurance-you don’t need it until the shit hits the HVAC. This isn’t the Tang fucking dynasty. I don’t want my city’s engineering department staffed with the children of the road contractors who greased the mayor into his seat. I want Dave who can tell city council what type of welds were used on the pipes put in under East 54th st because he was on the crew who put them in 17 years ago. I want a civil service by and for the people, not by and for the politician’s supporters.
And think- a town of less than 10,000, and the mayor replaces the city works and planning managers? Just how deep is the talent pool in suburban Anch. anyhow? Unless there’s some hinkiness with contractors or competence, you don’t fuck with the staff who actually know how to implement what you want to do.
I wasn’t talking about librarians. As I already said.
It depends on whether the police department is an independent agency (usually with an elected chief) or a city department under the authority of the executive. It is not common for the police chief to be subject to removal when the executive changes, because it is not common for the police department to not be an independent agency. The vast majority of police and sheriffs departments AFAIK and IME are independent agencies with independently elected heads (chiefs, sheriffs). Which arrangement exists in Wasilla, AK, I couldn’t say. But I will point out that unless the chief is under the authority of the executive, it is highly unlikely she could have summarily and unilaterally fired him.
It was an addition that invited comparison to your OP. You issued that invitation yourself when you said that that she put “it” better than you could have – “it” presumably being some point you were both making. But she is talking about something completely different from the subject of your OP. Sorry you’re finding this hard to follow; let me know if you’d like me to use smaller words.
Sampiro, IMO half-assed generic bitchiness doesn’t generally merit a response. So if from now on it seems like I’m ignoring whatever sad little jabs you might need to throw out, it’s only because I am.
But it’s not all about “political influence and patronage,” or at least it’s not supposed to be. The underlying justification is that the executive – elected by the people – should be able to govern without dealing very closely on a daily basis with people who are hostile to his/her agenda, unsupportive, and obstructive. The departments that answer to the executive (and the people administering those departments) are supposed to be working with the executive, not against him/her. It is IMO not unreasonable that an executive would expect to staff those positions with people he or she feels he/she can trust. This usually doesn’t translate to a Night of the Long Knives, when every person in the department is asked to resign; there is an obvious need for continuity, expertise, and the preservation of institutional knowledge. But yes, it’s pretty well understood that department heads MAY be asked to leave if the administration changes to one very different from the one that appointed or hired them. They know that when they take the job.
The fact is, high level civil service is not fully nonpartisan, and cannot be so long as the highest offices are elected. There’s no cure for that IMO, since IMO those positions are rightly elected positions and should not be otherwise.
Yes, I gave you one so you would know why I’m not responding to such piddly-ass shit in future. I thought that would have been obivious from my last post, but I guess not.
And now you’ve given me two after saying you wouldn’t even give me one. We both know this passive agressive attraction repulsion thing between us has just got to lead to a brief but disastrous love affair that begins as a season ending cliffhanger and has a splotchy break up in sweeps week at some future point, but I do worry what will happen to the ratings. And the children.
I think most of the US fill a lot of positions by election that are merit appointments in Canada- i.e.: provincially, the Attorney General and Solicitor General are members of the leg. appointed to the post as cabinet positions. Crown Counsel (District Attorney in US-speak) are posted jobs, employees of the Province, not the city, and hired on merit. There’s a bunch more layers between the elected and the line staff here, so when there is a change in government, the deputy minister (unelected, person who actually runs the Ministry) and maybe ass’t deputies usually find a reason to move along to the next gig. Apart from that, we just don’t have a history of sackings just because there’s a new sheriff in town. It just not presumed that the old staff will be hostile to the new administration. They may turn out to not agree, but it’s not assumed to be the case.
Back to Palin and South Park, Alaska (which sounds like Paris in the 1920’s compared to some places in BC-they have a Walmart, for ogs sake! I lived in a burgh that had nothing but a coffee shop and a 18 wheeler Johnson’s truck that came every Thursday as a grocery store grumble grumble). Just what the hell could constitute such a major philosophic difference in the running of a very small town that the existing staff would be so hostile as to be obstructionist? Short of aforementioned corruption concerns with the town staff. Disagreements on the speed limit? Keep the books and counsel meetings open, drag rowdy teens home by the ear on the first public drinking offense and lighten TF up.
Well, neither do we. But just as the guy who actually runs the Ministry in your province might be expected to slope off gracefully, so might the guy who runs the local public works department down here. It doesn’t happen all the time – there is certainly an understanding that you can’t let everyone go who knows how to do the job – but those high-level people know there’s atleast a chance they’ll be asked to leave. Just like in Canada.