City bureaucrats need to respond to concerns
About a month ago the Pilot published my opinion letter titled "Asphalt Coercion," where I expressed my distress about the city's utility supervisor "pave or have your water terminated" letter that was sent to numerous folks this last summer.
As a follow up to that letter, on Aug. 16, 2004, I spoke at the City Council meeting expressing my concerns regarding the city's threats and the problems I had experienced with the City Utility Supervisor's aggressive approach to the enforcement of the city water and sewer regulations. As soon as I had finished with my comments, the City Engineer, Mr. John Wilson, immediately stood up as a "public" citizen and defended his utility supervisor, stating the enforcement of unpopular city codes was not a pleasant task, thereby implying that my concerns should be dismissed.
After that council meeting, on Aug. 23, I wrote a letter to Mr. Wilson expressing my feeling that his defense of the utility supervisor was premature and done only to insure that the city was on record for defending its personnel. I went on to explain I was not the only person who has experienced difficulties with the utility supervisor over the last few years and without seeking them out, I recently spoke to four different homeowners and several contractors who have had similar problems and conflicts with the city utility supervisor's way of dealing with the public. In my discussions with all these people (and my own experience) it did not seem the utility supervisor was interested in trying to help people through the process of meeting the city building requirements and his method of enforcement was overzealous (pave or be terminated?). I requested the city engineer take a look into the matter and make an objective evaluation of my claims.
To date I have received no response to my letter and now I know why. At the last City Council meeting, councilor Chris Coughlin asked Mr. Marks, the city manager, if the city had or intended to respond to my Aug. 23 letter to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Marks curtly stated "NO" and there was no further discussion. By this simple utterance it has become very clear to me the city manager feels that city officials have no duty to respond to its citizens' concerns and has no problem telling his bosses that is how things are handled. Apparently, while the City Council spins out and spends an enormous amount of time addressing issues it has little or no control over (The Patriot Act, state lands and county planning, etc.), it is neglecting one of the areas council was elected to specifically oversee - the city bureaucracy. By the council's failure, it is allowing these "unelected" bureaucrats to dictate how citizen concerns are to be treated or not treated. It is like the fox guarding the chicken coup where the public plays the part of chickens.
By this experience, I have come to understand why so many people are so apathetic towards government. What good does it do for a common citizen to stick his or her neck out and voice concerns when those concerns are dismissed out of hand at the most basic level of government? Through this process, I have learned the hard way that you cannot change City Hall.
Stephen P. Sullivan
Whitefish