Openness in Seattle means electing non-incumbents
I read Chris Leman’s comment on "how to make Seattle government as open as it claims to be." After blaming Bush era thinking for the problem, he goes on to suggest solutions.
Since Seattle almost never elects Republicans to any office, the problem is not due to Bush but due to something else. I suggest the lack of openness is caused by ONE PARTY RULE in Seattle. The presence of a meaningful opposition party is society’s best defense of democracy.
One party control regardless of the party involved has always led to three things: Corruption, Lack of Concern with what the average person thinks, and Unchecked Government control over the citizens. The reason Mayor Greg Nickels does not want to implement openness policy is obvious, he does not want to lose power and expose the corruption that is surely hidden inside his administration.
President Obama has said “Change happens because the American people demand it.” If you desire openness and transparency in Seattle government or in state government for that matter where there is also ONE PARTY RULE, then you are going to have to kick out incumbents.
Since most races in Seattle are non-partisan, that would mean voting for the best qualified non-incumbent in the next election. At the state level, this means dissatisfied Democrats must either run against Democratic incumbents or create a new party or horrors of horrors even, shutter, vote for a Republican.
The choice is yours, continued government control of citizens or recreating citizen control of government in Seattle.