City turnover is not extraordinary

There has been a great gnashing of teeth in certain quarters lately about some individuals losing elective city office and subsequent turnover of appointed city officials. Lawsuits against winners of elective office are flying, claiming “foul.” Editorials by losing electoral candidates are erupting whilst the city manager and the city attorney have essentially been asked to leave by the new City Council, albeit with quite generous benefits.

The only aspect of these events that is “extraordinary” is the level and intensity of whining by previous City Council members and their supporters.

Guess what? We live (so far) in a democracy. No one has a “right” to elective office. Voters decide which candidates best represent voters’ views on policy issues and decide accordingly. In our most recent municipal election, voters were quite emphatic (70%) that we want a change in the direction, velocity and composition of development in Loveland. As a consequence, there has been turnover on the City Council. Nothing unusual about that.

Similarly, with regard to top executive positions such as city manager and city attorney, such positions serve “at the pleasure of” the appointing authority, in this case, the City Council. It is quite common for positions that serve “at the pleasure of” to turn over from time to time in response to electors deciding they want their representatives to head in a new direction.

Maybe, instead of crying “foul,” unleashing lawsuits, expressing outrage, etc,. people who lost the most recent municipal election, and their supporters, should respect voters’ choices, stop fussing and instead ask themselves why they lost so emphatically.

— Robert L. Cole, Loveland