Political rhetoric can be defined as: The art of using language effectively and persuasively. Alderman Phil Elmore in a recent letter stated: “I vowed to thoroughly research eliminating the treasurer as an elected official.” However, if you look at his past mayoral campaign website it states: “In 2013, it is our vision that a NEW City Treasurer will oversee implementation of automation and technology desperately needed in City Hall. The goal of this new technology and the hiring of a new Assistant Finance Director will eliminate the elected position of Treasurer by 2017. This will save the City thousands of dollars while improving efficiency of all City Departments.”
The “Our vision” was both Elmore and Treasurer Dean Hardt. Personally, I like Mr. Hardt. Yet, in a recent news story he stated: “With much work yet to be done, I cannot advise eliminating the position at this time.”
Here is the problem I believe most people see. After two-plus years in office, even if it could be labeled bias, where is a written study of both the pros and cons of keeping a full-time elected treasurer at $75,000.00 a year cost to the taxpayers? There is none.
Current Alderman Wiggington backed Elmore and Hardt. Both Wiggington and Elmore should be asking why no study. Better yet, why not ask the people? The advisory referendum question: “Should the Treasurer’s position be reduced to a part-time position at the salary of an alderman?” Then, use the savings to put another police officer on the streets.
Digital Access For Only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Joseph W. Hayden