I am assuming that this is a letter to the Council Members as it refers to telephone conversations, but, as with much of the conversation centering around the McManus nomination, I think it misses a key point, supporting or not supporting McManus really has nothing to do with Lubinski or Gerold as candidates. This is not a election, it's a nomination; and there is only one nominee, McManus. And support or non-support of his nomination should be based on whether he's the right person for the job, not if you liked someone else.
Like many people in this discussion, I too wanted an internal candidate. I have worked with both candidates in the past and even sit on a board with Gerold. I liked them both so much that like many other people supporting them, I didn't bother to look at any of the other candidates. That was until it was put out that McManus was going to be the nominee. It was then that I did what anyone considering and especially voicing support on any of these candidates should do, took a look at McManus. And I've got to say that out of all the candidates, he is the best person for the job. Now what many people don't understand is that saying he's the best does not translate into Lubinski or Gerold not being good candidates or not being qualified. To say that it does is to be disingenous. They are good candidates or else they would not have made it to the final five. And were either of them to get the job, I do believe that they would do a good job and work hard, that does not mean, however, that they would do the best job. There is no way to say this definitively, because neither one has been in that role yet; McManus has. And that's what the job and the appointment is really about, ability and experience. Can you do the job? While I believe Gerold and Lubinski can, I know that McManus will, and that's a subtle distinction that in my mind makes all the difference. It is well and good to hope for things, but pause has to be given for real examination. If you're going to say a reason to support the internal candidates is the work they did on Mediation, then you also have to give equal time to that same 15 years that they were a part of this system that degraded to the point of needing it. If you're going to give credit for severe budget cuts, you have to give more of it to the Mayor, whose budget it is, and who is also making the nomination. If you're going to advance the argument that the appointment of a woman or member of the GLBT community is essential to indicating the City's commitment to diversity and affirmative action, you have to recognize that the previous Mayor was a woman of color and that affirmative action's purpose is to level the playing; compensating historical disenfranchisement and presenting preference when all other things are equal, not to substitute for ability and experience. And in those areas, McManus has more. Most important to remember is that not supporting McManus does not give the job to either internal candidate, the field had been narrowed to two before this, and the other choice was Moose. Gerold and Lubinski could have been the fourth and fifth choice, and if we went through all the candidates to get to one of them, how much confidence would the community have in either knowing they were the last two, or how much confidence would they have in their own job. More to the point, if you're just advancing the "I just want one of the internal candidates" what does that say about the good experience and the fine unique qualities that each one brings to the job that they are lumped together with their sole defining characteristic being that they're internal or a woman or a lesbian? The bottom line is that we have the nomination of a good person with the capabilities to do the job for Chief of Police. He is the most experienced and qualified and he should be judged on these merits, not on who one liked personally or politically. I've heard a lot of people talk about why they wanted Gerold or Lubinski and how good they would be, but no one giving a legitimate reason why McManus is not qualified or the best person for the job. He deserves that level of fair and unbiased consideration, and so does the City of Minneapolis and its citizenry. . Jonathan Palmer Victory REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
