It was good to learn that the financial task force approved by Butler City Council last month has been formed and already has held one meeting.

The city's financial situation has been dire for about five years, and it's finally become clear that something has to change — and that people outside the city building might have some good ideas.

In recent years, economic growth in the city has been limited, yet expenses continue to rise, particularly health care and pension costs in the public safety departments. The city has hit its legal taxing levels, and the structural deficit is troubling enough that there have been discussions about Act 47, the state law dealing with financially distressed municipalities.

Next year's budget is projected to be $7.99 million, about $650,000 more than the 2010 budget. Yet no revenue growth is predicted, and city's fund balance has been largely depleted by several years of deficit operation.

The financial task force is modeled after a similar group that looked at county finances a few years ago and was able to find ways for county government to improve its health.

The city is hoping that additional eyes and the talents of people with a range of experience and expertise will lead to some new options for improving Butler's fiscal picture.

Mayor Maggie Stock praised the members of the group for their willingness to help the city. She also wondered if they will “see anything we've overlooked.”

Given the talents of the people on the task force, it is possible that new ideas for reducing expenses or increasing revenues could come from the task force. It's also possible that the group's recommendations will be more a matter of elected officials having the courage to make tough choices — and less a case of city officials not knowing what options are available to improve Butler's financial picture.

Cheers to those who will be examining city finances and operations in hopes of finding cost savings or additional sources of revenue. The assistance from a group of talented people outside the city building is overdue.

Beyond the post-election headlines of major Republican gains in Congress, state legislatures and governors' mansions, there was some good news for voters of both parties — that's good news for voters, but not for the professional politicians in the parties. In California, a ballot initiative to end gerrymandering in the state was approved by voters on Nov. 2. Sending a clear message, voters also defeated a competing initiative — supported by politicians — to kill the nonpartisan redistricting commssion.Gerrymandering, or the partisan redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts for the political advantage of one party or another, is an abuse of power that has gone on for too long in too many states. The problem is not only that the practice is tolerated — it also is not widely understood.The lesson schoolchildren learn about democracy allowing citizens to chose their elected representatives is turned on its head by gerrymandering, which happens after every Constitutionally mandated national census when states redraw political boundary lines. Partisan redistricting is essentially a method that allows elected officials to chose the voters they want by drawing the boundary lines to include or exclude voters of one party or another.Gerrymandering is used to create so-called safe, or noncompetitive, districts in which voters of one party vastly outnumber the other party.Each party engages in this anti-democratic practice and only a few states have taken the redistricting power away from politicians. California's move to stop the practice is an example for other states, including Pennsylvania, to follow.

When political unknown Joe Miller defeated U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary in Alaska it was an example of the power of tea party-backed candidates. But after her surprising defeat, Murkowski decided to run as a write-in candidate in the Nov. 2 election — a reaction that Miller's camp described as that of a poor loser.Now that Murkowski appears poised to have succeeded in her write-in campaign, it's Miller's campaign team that looks like sore losers.The issue comes down to determining voter intent and whether any handwriting or spelling irregularities will be tolerated on write-in ballots.It might turn out that enough ballots with Lisa Murkowski clearly written on them secures the incumbent the first write-in victory for the U.S. Senate. But the Miller campaign is threatening to challenge some ballots, including one featuring a cursive “L” followed by the rest of Murkowski's name being printed.Miller's campaign also is threatening to sue to have ballots tossed out that are marked for Murkowski, but that contain minor spelling errors.That would be wrong. If voter intent is clear, Miller should avoid forcing a protracted legal battle. Minor misspellings or other small irregularities on ballots should not be challenged.Miller's team say they are only following the letter of the law. Instead, they just look like sore losers.