It seems arbitrary
Why cut 200 jobs [“McGinn plans cutbacks in 200 city jobs,” NWSaturday, Jan. 23]? Why not five or 1,000? Mayor Mike McGinn has picked a random number out of the air and made a campaign promise.
I acknowledge the city is facing a budget crunch but a responsible executive would get some facts first. Are there unnecessary positions that can be cut? Is there duplication that can be eliminated? Are there noncrucial services that, while nice to provide in good times, Seattle cannot afford in bad times? Will cutting positions in revenue-generating departments save money in salaries but cost the city more in lost fees? Will it frustrate citizens because government no longer functions for them? Do we really want to cut willy-nilly without knowing the impact?
The majority of the positions the mayor has identified are not funded by the general fund and eliminating them will do nothing to make up a deficit there. Seattle has a budget process that can and should be used to identify the cost savings that McGinn hopes to realize.
It seems as though McGinn — having naively made a promise — now intends to compound that error by keeping it. The damage could be tremendous. Is this what we can expect for the next four years?
— Bill Elmelund, Seattle