There's a right time for everything, a natural ebb and flow; a time for new beginnings and, just as certainly, one for endings. Now is the time for this column to end, and this change comes purely at my request.

I wanted to wrap up this column before the local elections so my decision would not be affected by that outcome. It matters deeply to me who wins or loses this election, but the results will not change the fact that ... it's time.

Almost three years ago I wrote my first column in this paper. It was titled, "Open Government: Just what the doctor ordered." That was the beginning, and what a process it has been!

As I look back on the more than 70 columns, nearly all are centered around one theme: Good Government. Here in Coeur d'Alene we have been asking, begging and demanding more openness, more respect and more accountability.

There have been some improvements: LCDC meetings are now on TV and their meeting minutes are now online. The City Council doesn't hide quite as much in the Consent Calendar and they are more aware of people watching.

But to be honest, a great deal has not changed. It may even be worse. When a spotlight is shone on a problem, two things can happen: Either the issue gets cleaned up and the behavior changes, or the outward appearance improves while the basic problem is driven deeper behind the scenes.

I'm sorry to think the second option is what we've got right now. Let me tell you why, and we'll start with that old comparative, "What Would Jesus Do?"

Only let's change it to: "What Would Good Government Do?" because the problems here have been going on so long, I'm not sure people know what responsible government looks like, acts like or feels like.

Here's the first example: If a Good Government city had a private church project asking for help, and the price of that help suddenly jumped from $1 million to $3 million, what would they do? First, because it's giving taxpayer money to a private church project the city will never own, Good Government would be very careful to get citizen approval. Secondly, the price tripled! Good Government would provide the public with clear reasons for the increase; it would investigate and demand an open bid process, all the while keeping citizens informed. And it would only go forward if supported by the taxpayers through open public meetings or a public vote.

That is not what we got. We got a slick advertising slight-of-hand. Look at the pretty pictures, but don't ask any questions about the money, no bids or the complete lack of public meetings or vote before the decision to hand over $3 million taxpayer dollars.

Here's another example: If a Good Government bought a building for city use with a voter-approved public bond, would they later remove the city workers from that building, pay extra to rent a different space for those workers, then lease the building to a non-city group for just $10 per year? And would they let the non-city group sublet the rest of that building to other groups for big money? And would they offer the non-city group a 99-year lease at $10 per year with an automatic extension for another 99 years? All of this without a vote of the citizens who originally voted to tax themselves extra to buy this building for city uses?

Of course not! Good Government would be forthcoming and explain it all to the citizens. They would present their reasoning, their plan and any benefits for the community. Then they would ask the citizens to vote again to approve the alternative use of the building purchased with their extra tax dollars.

For the final example (believe me, I could go on and on but space won't allow): Would Good Government give property tax money to private developers for luxury condominiums in the very heart of a thriving downtown? Would they give these property tax incentives, which are meant for areas that "would not otherwise develop," to a project already under construction, with the walls going up well before the tax decision was made? That developer told the newspaper the extra money was nice because he could "build bigger and taller."

Good Government would recognize the difference between blighted, economically depressed areas which would not develop on their own, and a high-end handout for rich, well-connected developers taking advantage of the system.

Good Government would research, study and understand the impact of these decisions on the pocketbooks of the average taxpayer. Good Government would demand constant accountability for all incentives and would be open with all expenditures of taxpayer money.

Good Government is not what we have in Coeur d'Alene today.

You, the citizens of Cd'A, control the future of our city with your vote. Please use it carefully. You can vote right now at City Hall or at the Elections Dept. at 1808 N. Third St.; it's very quick. Or you can wait for election day, Nov. 3.

Writing these columns for the past three years has been highly challenging and incredibly rewarding. Thank you for the tremendous support you have given me during this process. I also appreciate the professional attitude of The Press, especially Editor Mike Patrick, who has never told me what to write or what not to write, and has always been kind and understanding.

But now it's time to leave the newspaper format. I will, however, continue to write my free e-mail newsletter. The newsletter allows me a more open style and the ability to be more bold, name more names and connect more dots. If you are not already on the list, you can sign up at www.marysouzacda.com. Please encourage your friends and family to sign up as well.

Some folks say we get the government we deserve, but I say we can recognize our mistakes and take corrective action. The future is in our hands, people. We can make a difference!

As Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist who studied civilizations and cultures all over the world said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."