LETTER: Mitchell doesn’t need manager plus mayor
To the Editor:
In regard to your discussion at the City Council meeting Monday evening and your proposal of adding an administrator to the city of Mitchell: How dumb do you think the people of Mitchell are? I think not too dumb, because they already defeated the manager bit and voted it down. Now here you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the administrator “fiasco.” I looked it up. It means complete failure.
I still use a dictionary and the Internet and the definition of a manager and administrator are the same thing. (“Someone who controls resources and expenditures.”)
For administrator, “chief, top dog, head, person who is in charge, the head of the whole operation, a person who administers the affairs of an organization, one who manages, one who directs a team, etc.” Now with that definition, who needs a mayor?
For a manager, “one who handles, controls or directs an organization, industry or shop. A person who manages an enterprise or one of its parts. Head director, executive boss, administrator, superintendent.” Now with this definition, who needs a mayor?
You also stated that Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Watertown have full-time mayors. What you didn’t tell us is that Sioux Falls has a population of 153,888, Rapid City’s population is 67,956 and Watertown’s is 21,482, compared to Mitchell at 15,254. Cities with approximate population to Mitchell who do not have full-time mayors are Aberdeen, 26,000 population; Brookings, 22,056; Yankton, 14,454.
When you ran for mayor, you should have known the job description and what the position paid. If you didn’t, it is no one’s fault but your own. It would be nice if everyone could get a raise if they thought they were underpaid. Get real and quit whining. If the job is more than you can handle, I am sure there are others who could do it well.
The people voted on what they wanted. What part of “no” don’t you understand, Mr. Mayor?