You'll be getting rid of Dan DiGuilio this year. That will be an undeniable plus. But that will still leave Dan Morrison running "amuck" in the community, Dan Williams talking trams, and Dan Maguire making bad, bad, bad musical associations for the JFFA.
Oh, and it will also leave Dan McKeen in place as City Manager.
But should he be the next Dan to go? We know that City staff are a problem, and that the City Council can't hire or fire staff members themselves - except for the City Manager. So does it make sense to make that one (very important) position that is directly under the Council's control a campaign issue this year? As in, "I will only support candidates who pledge to hire a new City Manager, one who will be proactive in dealing with painfully obvious staff issues?"
Is it true that Nice Guys help their cities
Let's be blunt: This will put City Council candidates, including unopposed incumbents like Sissi, in an uncomfortable position. No one wants to be "mean" to Dan McKeen, right? Like the previously described dopey dawdling droner Pat Downie, everyone seems to agree that McKeen is "a nice guy."
But is that enough to shield him from any and all criticism? Do candidates get spared an "uncomfortable" question, even though the many uncomfortable residents of Port Angeles get no such relief? Should Dan McKeen get a free pass, even though city residents are expected to pay full price?