There is stigma attached to being employed in the public sector. You are accused of inefficiency, ineptitude and, if you serve on a council or board that wields any sort of power, bias. But if working for the “man” was derided before the recession, it has only worsened since. And the Flathead is a prime example of that.
It used to be that small-town municipalities escaped the scrutiny and criticism often reserved for those working in Washington, D.C – at least the worst of it. But a lot has changed over the last few years. And a general distaste for the highest levels of government has trickled down to the lowest, with constituents looking for someone, anyone, to blame for the cash-strapped state of the union.
Before the economy tanked there were cantankerous local issues that drew plenty of backlash – the controversy over the size of impact fees in Kalispell, money paid by developers to offset the estimated costs of accommodating nearby traffic, comes to mind. But a high-flying economy masked much of the disagreement, where today public sector workers are under an intense microscope gripped by a distrustful general public.
The three-person Flathead County Commission, arguably the most powerful government body in the valley, has become a target for a variety of voters who have criticized its decisions on board appointments (the fair), land-use lawsuits (North Shore Ranch development) and personnel (Planning Director Jeff Harris, who was told his contract won’t be renewed).
In Whitefish, the city council has been accused of playing favorites with business owners by banning late-night vendors downtown and meddling in volunteer boards, specifically at the Whitefish Convention and Visitor Bureau, for political reasons.
In Kalispell, and almost everywhere else, there is a perception that the government is still bloated with high salaries paid for by a suffering private sector. And there is a general rallying cry that more pay and positions should be cut.
Many, if not most, of these concerns have merit. When the rest of us have to clamp down on spending so too should the business that is government. Still, what must be especially discouraging to those in the public sector is that their motives instead of their decisions are often at the center of dispute. There is a general feeling that if a government official’s decision is objectionable then, somehow, he or she is conspiring against us.
This can partly be attributed to the fact that no one, at any level, is willing to take credit for the economic conditions that have led to record unemployment in the Flathead and elsewhere. For example, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan visited Capitol Hill last week and defiantly said that he had little to do with the Wall Street collapse and argued that he issued guidelines for subprime lending, which is largely blamed for the dire housing market.
“I was right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time,” Greenspan said, offering another excuse in a long line of them provided by our public officials.
When the government’s decisions are directly affecting our pocketbooks, then every level will feel the public’s distaste for it, even if some of the criticism borders on paranoia. I’m a cynic, but I refuse to believe there is a conspiracy reaching its tentacles into every network of local government. Our small-town politicians still think for themselves (the majority of time), even if I disagree with some of the decisions they make.
There also remains an innocence to our local elections, which was on full display at the Creston Auction last weekend, where candidates were shaking hands, passing out literature and driving pickups with their political signs in tow. I just hope these aspiring public sector workers know that they’re applying to be “part of the problem.”