The first one stemmed from an accusation of nepotism when a city employee perceived that the former city manager abused his power to keep a relative employed. The second one grew out from that after some city employees perceived that they have little recourse to air their grievances. The third one was also connected to the first as it exposed a perceived problem in the chain of command between the city manager and the city attorney. Employees perceived they could not trust the city attorney for help or advice. But it didn’t end there.
After word came out that the city manager used a contract technicality to squeeze the taxpayers out of $9,400 in exchange to keep his own word on his announced retirement date, some council members perceived the smell of blackmail. This episode over the city’s contractual negotiations however proved to be connected to the third problem, the perceived relationship the city attorney’s office maintains with the city manager and the city council. In order to negotiate the city’s final contract in good faith with the city manager, the council had to hire an outside attorney.
Who does the city council turn to for legal advice when they negotiate property purchase contracts or service contracts? Who will the city turn to when they hire a new city manager? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
During last week's council meeting, council members carried on with a serious discussion on these realities excluding the manager’s contract, only to offer a verbal note of confidence for the status quo.
Yes, the acting city manager changed some of the wording in the HR handbook so the city will no longer give preferential treatment to children and relatives of city employees, AND they hired a consultant to review the HR department, but nothing beyond that.
In addition, the newspaper article took statements from the meeting out of context to help smooth things over. For instance, they wrote this next statement up as a councilman having "concerns about changing the charter ordinance."
JG Excerpt:THAT should have raised an alarm. Sounds to me like the councilman only has some concerns if we DON'T change the charter ordinances.
"On the other side … it's a long time in coming, but many months ago I asked for some information on charter ordinances and ordinances that gave the city manager extraordinary powers. And I strongly feel this information was withheld from the council." -- Councilman George Brunner
Sure, employee grievances may not be reason enough to change Janesville's governmental structure, but the gaps in the structural command and trust between the city manager, attorney and council should be. They did nothing to change the reality of that broken trust......and that's the perception.
Note: Sub-title on Tuesday's, September 9th print edition headline of the Janesville Gazette read "City Council Votes Against Changing Governmental Structure." The Janesville city council discussed two issues simultaneously under the grievance/structure topic ending in a verbal agreement to leave things as they are. No official votes were cast.
End Of The Con Game?
No comments:
Post a Comment