What is Municipal Receivership II
Here is one aspect of the aforementioned exploration.
Receivership usually means that an organization, as it has been, is going away. A city itself, of course, can’t actually go away solely due to fiscal problems. And only in the most extreme of circumstances could a city government go away, or even change very quickly, because of money troubles, in the same way that a private organization might.
So if municipal government is still going to be around after a receivership, albeit with a different cost structure, but with fundamentally the same organizational structure, then what municipal receivership mostly means is that city officials are going to get somebody else to make the tough choices, and then have the full authority of their official positions returned with very little in the way of direct consequences. This is a problem in terms of accountability.
So if units of municipal government are allowed to treat their fiscal problems with a concept like receivership which isn’t entirely compatible with the nature of governmental organizations, shouldn’t a city council and mayor submit their resignations along with a receivership petition, to show they really have exhausted any options they have to offer, and that no parts of their organization are off-limits to radical change?