Hugh Holub’s column, “On the Line,” N.I. May 19, 2009, is misleading as to point-in-time and those to whom he attributes constant meddling in the administration of the city government which, he asserts, precludes proper evaluation of those officials of whom it is required.

He refers to his experience with the elected officials of Nogales. His experience spanned two distinct forms of government before and after the year 2001.

Before the end of 2000, the City Charter required that the mayor be the city’s Chief Administrator. The Assistant Administrator was his subordinate adjunct. The mayor’s duty was not only to manage the city as its executive officer but to provide to the City Council initiatives of law for approval and the origination of policy. Evaluation of the unelected personnel was simple and uncontroversial. Evaluation of the elected officers was in the hands of the citizenry.

If Hugh can provide, without generalization, the deeds and identities of the meddlers, according to his experience after the year 2000, this would give the people of Nogales a clear insight as to the consequences of government change from an elected to an unelected administrator.

In my experience, the worst kind of meddling is when an unelected bureaucrat city official or employee attempts to undertake the authority to make policy.

Cesar Rios

Nogales