City Manager

“Oh what a tangled web we weave…” Perhaps that should be the headline after reading this week’s Herald and the revelations that are coming out about our City Managers proposed dismissal. It seems our Council majority is forcing this termination without cause and with no regard to prior agreements. If, in fact this is the case, it begs question after question to which we as citizens do not have answers.

While a “photoshopped” picture of the Council majority dressed up as cartoon characters is certainly juvenile it is not the main story. The real story is what is behind the masks and the overall behavior of the Council majority on a variety of issues ranging from violating working rules, hostile workplace issues, interfering in negotiations and more. But even these items ignore the process that could result in the termination of the City Manager or any other City employee regardless of performance or contract.

If published reports are correct, the City Manager offered or accepted a 28% cut in his overall compensation. It appears that was not enough for this Council. One has to ask, who among us can deal financially with a reduction of that size in our income? Is there a number the Council majority would have accepted? Why did the negotiations stop here at this time with this result?

So what is the reason for the termination? If the termination is not for cause and not for compensation then for what reason? If the Council simply wanted to replace the City Manager, there is a process for that. After all, the City Manager is an “at will” employee of the City. The Council needed to simply tell him that they want to go in another direction, abide by the terms of his contract and move on. It is really quite simple - no cause needed, just the rules of contract law.

So why is the Council majority putting the City through this painful, very public and expensive exercise? It seems any contract savings is being spent on outside attorneys now and through the process that is to follow in the future. Our City Charter expressly states that we have a City Manager, so who is next for the position of City Manager and what will it cost to do a proper executive search to find that person?

What is the process now at the public hearing scheduled for March 6^th on this matter? Do the citizens have a right to comment at the public hearing? Is there to be an open session vote at the end of the public hearing on the termination? If there will be a vote, on what conditions? Would it be to continue with the termination (effective the next day) or to continue negotiations? If a vote is not taken, is the decision already made? If that is so, then when was the action to terminate reported out from the closed session to the public to make it legal?

There are so many questions and so few answers. As I stated earlier, “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”

More later…

Black Holes

Since last June I have been writing these blog entries to help raise awareness of some of the issues that affect our community. Previously, I was writing simply as a Marina resident and business owner. Now, in full disclosure, I am writing as a candidate for Mayor of Marina in the November election. That said, I will continue to write this blog in the same style and fashion including this blogs subject.

I have entitled this blog ‘black holes’ because that is what our Marina City Council Closed Session meetings have become. Project after project go into these sessions and never seem to come out. Weeks later we get word that this project or that is no longer being considered.

Under the Brown act if any action is taken in these meetings it must be reported out at the next general meeting of the City Council. Rarely, if ever have we heard a conclusion to these negotiations. We are now getting an indication of what is going on in these sessions from the companies and developers that are the subject of these closed sessions.

The following entries are direct quotes from one specific developer who has given up and is taking his project and jobs elsewhere.

“The withdrawal of my request includes, but is not limited to, the following factors:
1) Uncertainty of City’s Commitment #1: Frankly, the City Council’s decision to initially award an ENA to a group that came in after me (even though the Council came back to give me "another shot") created a cause for concern amongst my investors and I of the City's real commitment to this project;

2) Uncertainty of City’s Commitment #2: Although an unrelated project, the City’s recent decision to not extend the deadlines for the development process and lease with the neighboring ICS project after its substantial investment and good faith efforts to push the project forward created another cause for concern about the City's cooperation with and commitment to developer/partners;

3) The Process of Simply Receiving a Draft ENA: While I understand and completely appreciate the City Council's duty to fully vet projects on City property, my opinion is that the process that I went through to receive the Council's approval to deliver me a draft ENA was overly arduous. I provided detailed (and proprietary) information for the Council's benefit and was responsive to the multiple inquiries for additional information (from Keyser Marston early on and the City Council subsequently). I believe that the information requested (and which I provided) was "over and above" what would be required to simply enter into an ENA. In addition, I followed up the information with individual meetings with certain City Council members and was disappointed that those members did not seem to have been "up to speed" with the information I provided.

4) The Process Following the Granting of the ENA: I received a draft ENA to which I was asked to provide comments to. I did so, only to subsequently receive a new and totally different ENA draft to provide comments to.

5) Ultimately, as time with the City of Marina dragged on, we were courted by another City that is now doing everything it can to facilitate getting this project underway and securing the +/-90 jobs that we'll be creating.”

A recent article quotes the Mayor as not being responsible for finding new revenues for the City. In fact he was quoted as saying “… it’s not the mayor’s job to raise city funds”. While the Mayor is correct, he is not responsible for finding the revenue, he is responsible for the tone and for the processes needed to facilitate new revenues. It is clear by this example, this is not being done. There are several other projects that have fallen into this ‘black hole’. They include the Canine Institute, the stockade project, the highly publicized Eco Village, the Airport management agreements, the Preston Park negotiations and even the City Manager negotiations that have gone on since July. I am sure if I thought about it, I could come up with a few more.

So as deal after deal is drawn out our City budget continues to bleed. As these developers walk away from the table our City suffers. The millions of dollars lost will cost us in further cuts to our City staff and core services. In the meantime, our City Council is demanding cuts from all our City employees. Is this right?

Our City Council turns principle negotiations over to two individuals: Mayor Delgado and Mayor Pro Tem O’Connell. It is clear that in case after case, they are either not up to the challenge or they have another agenda when it comes to our City’s future.

More later