Wednesdays editorial takes local governments to task for opposing efforts to strengthen the states Open Public Meetings Act.
Whenever the topic of open government comes up, local elected officials complain that theyre required to play by tougher set of rules than state government. If anyone deserves to be picked on, it's the pols in Olympia.
Its a reasonable criticism. As a rule, our editorial pages tend to shine a harsher spotlight on local officials than their statewide counterparts. Blame our relentlessly parochial nature.
Since the state Legislature makes the laws, its no surprise that legislators are allowed to get away with practices that arent allowed at city hall. No surprise, but wrong nonetheless.
Jason Mercier, director of the Center for Government Reform at Washington Policy Center, takes a closer look at the issue in a recent quest column published the Everett Herald.
Similar stories:
Richland council: Revell
Richland council: Revell
I support the re-election of Ed Revell to the Richland City Council. Ed has considerable experience in federal, state and local government having spent years as a Bonneville Power account executive and working with local public power entities. Ed is well respected and known as a man of wisdom and integrity. His commitment to open and transparent government, being fully accountable to the public for decisions made, and staying well informed of the issues is something that we all want from our elected officials. Ed is without equal in fulfilling this commitment.
Ed Revell brings leadership to the city. He has served five years on the Richland City Council, the last three years as mayor pro tem. Ed serves as chairman of the Hanford Communities, an association of local government entities that monitors cleanup at Hanford and on the Energy Communities Alliance, a Washington, D.C., based organization that follows the cleanup activities of DOE, and makes sure that our voice continues to be heard. Ed serves a vital
Fast focus: Local control needed
Fast focus: Local control needed
No Child Left Behind is the most severe federal control. I admire the state of Utah for rejecting not only NCLB, but also the money offered as blackmail by the federal government. Blackmail that forces Montana to writhe over their situation, as cited in your recent editorial.
Utah told the federal government to keep its money and programs. Utah has a fine school system preparing children for whatever endeavors they choose. Utah symbolizes local control -- a concept demolished by federal programs in most states!
Local control meant people who supported school districts decided what was best educationally for their children. Rural districts emphasized their needs, etc. Sadly, like mushroom roots, the federal government has usurped local control without regard for the practical public education of our children. We let them do it.
Israeli labor union starts strike, flights delayed
Israeli labor union starts strike, flights delayed
Israel's largest labor union launched an open-ended nationwide strike for the first time in five years on Wednesday, shutting down national and local government offices, banks, the stock exchange, rail service and seaports.
Fast focus: Set standards
Fast focus: Set standards
States should set their own standards and they should insist on matching world standards. My system favors each state only sending enough money to the feds to fund the military, CIA, FBI, etc., and each state keeps the "remainder" money to govern themselves. I don't believe the feds should be able to blackmail states (which they do all the time) by withholding dollars which came from the states in the first place. There would be a department of education in each state run by that state. A small education department would be in Washington, D.C., and it would monitor national and world testing results to let the individual states see how they rank against other states as well as other countries. My system requires other changes within the fed government but we don't have enough space for that now. Many functions would be handled within state government where we could hold local politicians and state workers accountable. The U.S. is too expansive to have everything handled by one federal government, as its left
Fast focus: Bad question
Fast focus: Bad question
On a scale from zero to 100, zero being no government involvement at all and 100 being total government control, I think 41.2 is about right. In other words, a silly question deserves a silly answer. In this Confederate community, you will certainly hear from some of our states' rights, separate-but-equal stalwarts whose contempt for "the government" blinds them to any legitimate functions that government performs. It goes without saying that everyone advocates local control at some level, but standardization of some aspects of education at a national level is not only essential to fairness but also to the adequacy of the education that our children receive. Your question is far too broad to elicit much beyond knee-jerk reactions to the word, "government."
-- Martin Bensky, Richland
Print
Email Story
