Is this new Ark City commission going to systematically undue some of the policies that the previous commissioners put in place? When the three amigos were at the height of their power?
The new board has changed the work session times closer to what they were, and now want to get rid of the advisory board term limits. We all know that they are pro-TIFF, or at least four of them are. Wonder if they will expand the hospital board back to nine to get Jean Snell on there.
This does seem like a restoration of the old guard - those more comfortable with existing organizations and established procedures. These folks tend to be the ones in leadership until populists like Smith and Kuhn are elevated by discontent among voters.
Meanwhile, stuff does get done
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
Best sites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(104)
-
▼
May
(22)
- Nuclear energy bombs
- GE strike fears
- Paternal city
- Hospital red ink
- Bucking the trend
- Legalize it?
- Medi-scare
- Public meeting on drugs
- Jobs in Cowley
- Hospital board
- How to pray?
- To cut or not to cut
- Gone with the wind
- Archer's return
- Prayer policy
- Budget battles
- Arts undercut
- Salina TIF
- Abortion winds
- Cut cut cut ...
- Restoration
- Yea, but ....
-
▼
May
(22)
8 comments:
"Resoration" is not a word.
I don't get the big deal about the hospital board because the Commission does what it wants anyway. If they don't like the rec from the hospital board they just add or take away members on the board until the board fits their agenda. Just get rid of the hospital board and then the good ole boys can run the hospital. They are experts on everything and will manipulate from afar to get their way. What was the reasoning for tabling the hospital appointments?
Whoops thanks
I think the appointments were tabled because the mayor (who makes those appointments) was not there to say which 2 of the 3 or 4 were his picks.
Reminds me of term limits. McDonald was right about being reappointed. Terms last 2 or 3 years. When a position comes open a different mayor from the one who made the original appointment is sitting. It is the new mayor's option to reappoint or to pick someone new. Then it is up to the commission (who also would have changed) to confirm the appointment. Why set a limit on the work someone can do when we already have a plan to put the best person in place each term?
So why were some of his appointments approved and not the ones for the hospital? He was not at the meeting for those either but they got approved. Was it really to add another position just to get Snell on?
It appears that the first appointments matched in number the postions available, whereas the people applying for the hospital position were considerably more than the openings available.
If they put Snell on that was a huge mistake. The people obviously did not want him ie. the election. So why would they even consider him? Is he on there?
Did the hospital board make a recommendation as to who should be appointed? If so,did the commissioners dismiss that and if so why? Why do we have a hospital board? What is their role and what is the role of the city commission. It seems the city commission only wants the hospital board so if something goes wrong the blame goes to them yet in reality they have no say in what happens. It all seems to be run by the city commission and since no one on the commission knows much about hospital business or the medical profession that is very worrisome. I have no problem with Snell getting it but I do have a problem with the backdoor politics the commission uses to get their own way.
Post a Comment