Home Ice bergs Dec 26 Letters to the Editor, Part 1: Opinions from our readers | Opinion

Dec 26 Letters to the Editor, Part 1: Opinions from our readers | Opinion


I had a good laugh at the letter from Ged W. Randall titled “What Next? “

I think Lewiston taxpayers have been wondering about this for the last 20 years or so in the form of municipal government. And if this system of government is so wonderful, why only three cities in Idaho have it.

Basically, this is a non-representative form of government since the CEO only responds to four people to keep his job. He is certainly not responsible to the people.

The only decent city manager we had was fired by the four minions from the Lewiston Fire Department because they thought they should run the town.

Then Randall complains about the minority of voters who are fed up with this sad form of government.

Funny – the library vote was never passed and never had more than 20 percent turnout. But that didn’t stop city staff and council from stealing $ 800,000 from the sanitation fund and charging taxpayers 2½% interest on their own money.

I still hear those famous words from a city councilor, who said he knew it wasn’t the best place, but still voted for it.

And where in the city code does it say that city department heads should have guaranteed jobs? If they can’t do an honest job, they should be fired.

Not the people’s advocate

When Lewiston rejected the decrepit progressive ideal of an expert government and reverted to a strong mayor system, Marty Trillhaase observed: “In the early 1900s, when Americans were enamored with science and engineering, cities were looking for professional administration instead of politicians. More than a century later, people are disillusioned and even suspicious of expertise.

Mistrustful? Try more sophisticated and less fascinated by shiny objects, Mr. Trillhaase.

Many clowns and porters hold degrees today. They do not guarantee competence or character.

Moreover, “government by experts” is at odds with “government of the people, by the people and for the people”, creating de facto power by oligarchic bureaucracies beyond the reach of the ballot box.

Those who zealously devote themselves to bureaucratic government inevitably betray the best interests of the people.

It’s proven for the Lewiston Tribune and its owners.

The Alfords are good people. Their desire to do civic good is sincere. However, they have pledged to do so through government and parastatal organizations controlled by bureaucrats rather than elected officials.

Thus, the Tribune found itself supporting a failing municipal administration and, it turned out, opposing the good of the people as determined by the collective will of the people.

Thus, the newspaper acts as a press agent for the federal health bureaucracy rather than as a watchdog.

Historically, a Roman tribune protected the people from the government. They were to be the advocates not of one party or faction, but of all ordinary citizens.

Our Tribune forgot how to do it.

Let’s travel back in time on the deck of the unsinkable RMS Titanic. We will warn the captain to slow down. But he replies, “We like to travel fast. I don’t believe in icebergs, and a crew member agrees with me. Ships sink all the time. It’s natural. In addition, God will not let anything bad happen to us.

In 1912 Michigan Senator William Alden Smith chaired the Titanic Inquiry Committee. He concluded: “Indifference to danger was one of the direct and contributing causes of this unnecessary tragedy.” So what was the real threat, the iceberg, or the wrong thinking?

Today, when people oppose climate change mitigation, the far-reaching consequences of their equally imperfect indifferent thinking are infinitely more serious.

Ask your representatives and senators to protect our spacecraft Earth by putting a price on carbon to reduce emissions, slow and reverse climate change, and save time. Please. For the sake of our grandchildren.

I see letters like those from Kathy Schock and wonder if they know how to use a cell phone.

If they do, why don’t they use it to talk to Alan Nygaard, the city manager, or Dan Marsh, the city’s chief financial officer?

Is it because they have been brainwashed by friends to think that all government workers are liars and that any answer they get would be pure fiction?

So how is this supposed to improve with a change in government, other than maybe laying off everyone who works in the city and rehiring them as employees at will?

They can be responsible. But is it really a guarantee of transparency (i.e. honesty)?