The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
“The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city’s limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author has put forth an idea to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the committee. He cites two problems, both of which are valid. The problems faced by the committee are that many of its members are not Oak City residents and that many of the city’s residents do not live in the city. However, the author’s solution does not go far enough and fails to address the real issues.
First, would a restriction of membership to residents of the city really solve the committee’s problems? By restricting membership, the committee would be unable to undertake any initiatives that would benefit non-residents. The residents of Oak City may be easy to convince, but residents outside of Oak City are not. The citizens of Oak City pay city taxes, but those who work in the city but do not reside there do not. The committee’s problems would persist.
Second, the solution to the problems faced by the committee lies not in eliminating the non-resident members, but in increasing their representation on the committee. If the committee members, regardless of residency, believe that they are representing the interests of all citizens of Oak City, they are far more likely to work diligently to make the city better. By evaluating the issues objectively and reaching a consensus, the committee can formulate solutions acceptable to all. If the committee can unite and work together, its members can effectively manage the budget and make decisions that are in the best interest of both city residents and the city as a whole.
The author’s recommendation to restrict membership is sound, but it cannot be implemented without addressing the real problems that exist within the committee. The first step in trying to solve the problem is to determine if the problem really exists. The committee’s membership is representative of its residents, and non-local representatives are valuable members of the committee. Once the committee understands this, it can take steps to remedy the problems that exist.