Time for a bit of a rant, local goverment edition

I received the following email from the City of Scottsdale on Friday:

Scottsdale Update

RESIDENTS INVITED TO SAY THANKS AND FAREWELL TO COUNCILMAN OSTERMAN

The public is invited to a farewell reception for City Councilman Kevin Osterman from 4:15 to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23, in the City Hall Kiva, 3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd. The reception is being held just prior to a City Council meeting scheduled at 5 p.m.Councilman Osterman is leaving office on June 6 after two years of service on the City Council. He was elected in 2004 to fill the remaining two years of a four-year term left vacant by the resignation of a council member. Councilman Osterman's service to the city also includes appointments to the Scottsdale Planning Commission from 2000 to 2003 and to the 2000 Citizens Budget Committee and Bond Review Committee. He was also a member of the Mayor's Gang Task Force. The reception is informal and light refreshments will be provided. No reservations are necessary. For more information, call (480) 312-2335.

No mention of this is on the city's website, including in the posted agenda for the meeting. To be fair, it is clear from the email that the reception is before the meeting. I still would have thought that an event important enough to send out an email under the city's name (subscriptions@scottsdaleaz.gov ) would rate a mention on the city's website.

Anyway, that's not my rant. Here goes....

2 years?!? A going-away party for 2 years? I understand that the denizens of Scottsdale's City Hall are a close-knit clique, but 2 years is a hiccup in politics. That deserves a pat on the back, a hand-shake, and a 'see you next election cycle.' That's it. If they want to have a party, wait until his last council meeting has ended, and meet up to commiserate at the fashionable watering hole du jour.

Instead, the clique is utilizing city resources, both in city employee time (to set up and run the reception) and in taxpayer money (for the 'light refreshments') to fete one of its own.

Is it any wonder that the only non-incumbent on the ballot (Tony Nelssen) won a spot on the City Council? Is there any doubt that if Nan Nesvig had made it to the ballot without her candidacy being anonymously submarined that *she* would have won too?

More importantly, has the clique learned any lessons from this? Based on the evidence at hand, probably not.

If anybody is interested, I can forward the email. Just let me know.

Later!