Pittsburgh Planning Commission member won't be asked to resign - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said he won't ask Planning Commission member Todd E. Reidbord to ...Rather, I'd flog him.
Perhaps he can't be fired -- technically. But, he can be told that the 'air ball' he pulled makes him not worthy for the work that is before the city now -- and into the future.
His airball doesn't fit the sports-talk. Frankly, he simply went way out of bounds. When the game is on and it is crunch time -- you don't shrink from your responsibilities. It was 'gut-check time' for the planning commission. That session was billed as "the most important planning meeting in our lifetime" -- so blogged Bram. And, it lived up to that hype.
A weird twist in sports and life is shown in the running away from their governmental responsibilities of both Luke Ravenstahl (mayor) and this donor/developer appointed member of the planning commission. Luke went to the same game and missed the same meeting. Plus, Luke has been know to ditch important public forums in the past to hit a golf outing. These two guys get paid to lead in political settings. However, being sports spectators is a top priority for them. They would rather go to sports games and watch other people play games rather than fill the important roles in the political realm with life impacts where they are policy players.
They have their priorities upside down. They are clueless as to what really matters.
Meanwhile, my life is the opposite. I've devoted my professional life to sports participation, coaching, fitenss, etc. My hobby time goes to politics. Go figure. I've run from a practice to attend a public hearing. Meanwhile, they go AWOL in public hearings when they should be at the table to sit in the stands.
In all seriousness, Luke does not need to fire this guy. If I was mayor, I'd not need to fire him because different policies and measures would be put forth. Things would take care of themselves as I've called for more voter accountability into the system in dealing with all boards and every board member.
In my more ideal world, all board members, even planning commission board members, would face regular "RETENTION VOTES."
So, this guy from Walnut Capital was appointed to the Planning Commission Board by the mayor. In this case, Bob O'Connor gave him his seat. City council approved the nomination. Fine. That would not change. The appointments would still occur. However, the people should be able to go to the ballot box at regular elections and cast votes for retention for all the members on these appointed boards and commissions.
If we don't like the way people behave when appointed ot the boards -- the people should be able to take them off by voting them out.
Pennsylvania has these types of 'judge retention votes' too. We voted "NO" for Judge Nigro. He lost his seat on the bench because he was a jag off.
Retention votes would be easy to administer, occur without the need of expensive campaigns, and would give accountability back to the people.
Folks on these boards, now mostly nameless and faceless, by design, would have to shape up or else be shipped out by the voters.
I want retention votes for all boards and authority members. Then we'd be able to vote this guy out of here.
Perhaps we should start the petition to get this question put onto the ballot for the general election. We could call this the Reidbord Ballot Question.
Should appointed board members in the city's various commissions and authorities be subject to retention votes according to a strenuous forumla based upon first appointment and years of service.