Yes, Cd'A has acted responsibly

A regular online Press troll recently asked another contributor with respect to the Coeur d'Alene Mayor and council members, "do you understand the meaning of accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility?" After some contemplation and a refreshing beverage, this seemed like a challenge worth closer examination, but rather than slugging it out in cyberspace in an endless self-righteous tug-of-war, what a great question to ponder in a My Turn column to Mike Patrick.

So how do transparency, accountability and fiscal responsibility measure up where positions with authority to make decisions for others are concerned? Certainly this could be a potentially explosive assessment for some people, but it's not worth getting all upset. You might spill your hot coffee and get burned; that's much more painful than a short observation of local politics.

Logic suggests the best order is to start with transparency, essentially putting oneself forward in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. Next, fiscally responsible: Who hasn't gone to the grocery before eating and blown the budget? Lastly, but by far the most important is accountability. While easier to seek forgiveness for eating the bag of chips on the way home, it's just plain wrong to hide the empty bag then kiss the wife smelling like Doritos as you breeze into the kitchen empty handed.

So what about the newly elected officials - what advice might the new crop of city leaders garner from experience? Were Mayor Bloem and the City Council transparent? According to Merriam Webster, it seems they were. Can you think of anything they did not discuss publicly? LCDC, McEuen, Riverstone, their support of NIC, Kroc; projects seemingly discussed over and over, hashed and rehashed. Yes indeed, they told everyone what their vision was and how they would accomplish it. The mayor said no to an advisory vote and they weathered an attempted recall. OK, both sides get marks for being creatively dirty.

We should agree to check transparency off the list. Now what about accountability? Essentially it boils down to being accountable for one's actions, or in this case a majority was in favor of actions by the body and those who voted against did so because they felt they could not be accountable to public perception. Time will tell how this works out, but I will side with John DiLemme who summed it up with: "Accountability separates the wishers in life from the action-takers that care enough about their future to account for their daily actions."

It now boils down to the age-old question, are these investments fiscally responsible? Tricky question, but then my opinion is probably like many people's - you need to spend money to make money, even if it means going into debt to do so. It's like when you buy a home. You don't do it to lose the money. You invest carefully in order to hopefully turn a profit somewhere down the road. For the prudent investor that could be 30 years or more.

Did it make sense for the city to invest in McEuen or the Kroc, the library or Riverstone? Such community investments are places citizens should enjoy and go to work at now and well beyond the end of the URDs created to finance them. Therefore, yes, for all intents and purposes, these are responsible and good for the community.

One, two and three, it seems plausible that the Mayor and the City Council have acted with transparency, they were accountable for their actions and in all likelihood incremental financing, though somewhat controversial, will pay dividends to the whole community. That's nice because like most people, I like stories with happy endings. It's time the community moved along and started to heal the divisions.

Reid Harlocker is a resident of Hayden.