Published: August 18, 2008 03:45 am         

Take fresh look at how city is run

{"Body Text Edit"/}The city of Oneonta is getting by without a code enforcement officer.

It also lacks a downtown developer.

There's a part-time transportation director opening, too.

Some other city positions are held by retirement-eligible or nearly eligible people.

At best, city hiring practices appear vague, secretive and hamstrung by arcane rules that haven't been given a good look-see in decades.

At worst, there is the appearance of blatant cronyism such as that exhibited in the hiring of ineffective former Downtown Developer Jeff House as the city's housing rehabilitation specialist.

We wouldn't mind such a muddle so much if taxpayer money wasn't paying for it.

But, it is.

It is well past time for Oneonta to not only take a close look at how the city bureaucracy operates, but to take serious steps to streamline its operations and question long-held assumptions.

Is the management structure that essentially was in place in 1988 the best way to handle the people's business in 2008?

Is "we've always done it this way" any kind of an answer?

Mayor John Nader had this to say in February during his "State of the City" address:

"When we encounter the day-to-day and intermittent problems, errors, challenges and flaws that confront all governments and indeed all sizeable organizations, I suggest that we keep this in mind. There is no day without frustration. We remain imperfect. But it takes little effort to find fault or criticize. It requires far more work and good will to create and carry out measures that genuinely improve the community as a whole."

OK, fair enough.

In that same address, Nader also made a few favorable references to the city's 2007 "Comprehensive Plan."

As we have stated in the past, The 10-to-15-year plan is ponderous, basically useless and traditionally ignored by city government.

It would seem a propitious time for the city to look upon its current openings and prospective retirements as an opportunity to make some fundamental changes in the way things are done.

We suggest a small ad hoc committee of local business people, academics and other citizens who can use their acumen, experience and desire for good government to suggest a better bureaucracy.

And not take a whole year to do it.

Let nothing in the current government be sacred, let no assumptions go unchallenged, and let's run the city like a successful business.

Of course, that would mean that the mayor and Common Council must be willing to give up power and actually listen to and act upon the committee's recommendations.

It would mean that department head fiefdoms must be whittled and efficiency become more of a priority.

Maybe an ad hoc committee would find that the city's structure is perfect. Maybe not.

If nothing else, it's long past time for a fresh look.