Change is often good,but in Public Works,it’s a breath of fresh airCity budget cuts — particularly those involving Public Works Director Darrell Huiskes — have been popular conversation topics this week.What we’re hearing is that Huiskes is a hard-working, dedicated city employee who’s accomplished great things for the city.That’s true. He’s up early and works late whenever needed.Our streets are the best-maintained of any city in the state, and they’re the cleanest and driest in the winter time. We have a beautiful city with well-kept trees, grass, flower pots and pocket parks.Huiskes may have taken the initiative on all these things, but our taxpayers deserve the credit. These things all cost money, and it seems no expenses have ever been spared in Public Works on projects, manpower or equipment.We’ve also been hearing about what an effective leader Huiskes has been for the city and the public works department.For whatever it’s worth, I have a couple of thoughts on this: oRetirements are great opportunities for new leadership. The department has plenty of long-time capable workers, and I look forward to seeing a new, positive leadership emerge.oSecond, change can be painful, but it often results in better outcomes. There are many who believe there will be a silver lining to the cloud surrounding Huiskes’ departure. The general public won’t read about it in a council meeting story, and it won’t be reflected in any public meeting minutes, but it’s fair to say City Hall won’t miss the deceitful behavior and negative attitude that tend to surround our current public works director.In the case of city morale, change will be nothing short of a breath of fresh air.If you don’t break the law, you don’t need to worry about deputy tacticsI was thrilled Tuesday when Tom Harms’ letter to the editor landed on my desk. It was exactly the sort of balance I’ve been hoping to see on our Opinion Page for the past two weeks.After the first letter we received on this topic two weeks ago, I was sure it would prompt a letter from someone who appreciates effective law enforcement. Instead, we got another letter to the editor agreeing with the first one that law enforcement shouldn’t "harass" citizens.As an editor, I appreciate all letters from all viewpoints shared for publication, but as a citizen, I was bothered by the message developing on the page. It seemed to suggest officers shouldn’t work so hard to catch the bad guys.On the contrary, there are plenty of law-abiding citizens who want our deputies to do what it takes, within parameters of the law, to get the bad guys.It’s pretty clear why we have DWI laws and why it’s important to arrest violators. If it’s "harassment" to wait on a street near a bar to arrest drunk drivers, then it’s time to question the intent of the law.If we want to arrest drunk drivers, our deputies should do just like the one in question is doing — hang out where the violations are happening.To the ones breaking the law, this may feel like harassment; to everyone else, it’s simply effective policing.
