Council halts search for interim manager; will begin looking for permanent manager after referendum issue resolved
Following a special meeting of the Oshkosh Common Council this morning, the council decided on a 4-2 vote to halt its search for an interim city manager and, instead, switch to a search for a permanent person. But councilors also agreed to wait until after a government change referendum issue is resolved to begin that search.
I have read and understand both sides of the argument on whether this decision was the smartest or most ethical thing to do. But I also understand that since Richard Wollangk’s departure from city hall last month we have had three other retirements announced – one position which is vacant now, even though former city attorney Warren Kraft is technically still on the payroll until January, though not working – while the other two future retirees are still on the job. But it seems that, for a number of reasons, a city manager should have some say in shaping his staff, making the need for a permanent city manager search more important at this time than it was when the council first decided to seek an interim, then permanent manager.
I also understand the issue of ethics in this matter – that an interim position was advertised, candidates applied and finalists have been announced, making it important for the council to make good on its word and see that process through. But three of the five candidates are applying from out of state. It doesn’t make sense to think they would be willing to make such a relocation for a temporary position; and I suspect they may have hoped it would evolve into a permanent gig once here and they proved themselves. Another candidate, Doug Pearson, ironically – and coincidentally – announced his retirement from Chamco, effective September 2008, almost immediately after his name was announced as a finalist. He cited a desire to pursue other opportunities which have recently availed themselves to him. Might the possibility of a permanent position with the city be one of those “opportunities?” Or are there other opportunities altogether which would take him out of the running for the city manager’s slot?
Councilor Dennis McHugh said he believes the work the council did prior to the finalists being announced was “for naught.” Given the reasons stated above, I would think just the opposite. Just as these candidates were interested in a temporary position, I’d be willing to bet that most would be just as, if not more, interested in a permanent one. Granted, the criteria may be greater and, therefore, the finalists already named may not be what the council would be looking for on a permanent basis. But I would have hoped that even for an interim position, the council sought excellence and high standards in the applicants. If so, then the work already done was not done in vain.
Though opinion polls are unscientific, those who have responded to polls asking whether to abandon the search for an interim and move toward finding a permanent replacement in the city manager’s office have said that is the route to go.
Others, including councilor Paul Esslinger have expressed concerns over a heavy workload for an extended period of time for acting manager and the city’s personnel director, John Fitzpatrick. While that is a valid concern, Mayor Frank Tower has said they will have to do what’s necessary to spread his workload. Esslinger also cited a possible referendum and concerns about a permanent city manager search taking about three times as long as an interim city manager search. In its wisdom, the council has put the search on hold until the referendum issue is decided. In order for there to be a referendum question on ballot about the form of government, a minimum of 3,682 signatures would have to be gathered and filed with the city clerk’s office by Jan. 17. A citizen group will meet next Tuesday night at the Oshkosh Public Library to see about organizing such an effort.
And insofar as a search for a permanent manager taking three times as long as a search for an interim manager, one could easily take a more positive outlook and say “We only have to do most of the work and go through the hiring process once.”
Since the search for a permanent person isn't going to get underway for a minimum of two months, could the council have waited until Tuesday night's regular meeting to decide this issue? Certainly, but I doubt it would have changed the outcome of the vote. All things considered, it just seems that the move made by the majority of the council this morning (Esslinger and McHugh dissenting; Tony Palmeri could not make the meeting) is the smartest approach, given recent and ongoing developments in the city.
I have read and understand both sides of the argument on whether this decision was the smartest or most ethical thing to do. But I also understand that since Richard Wollangk’s departure from city hall last month we have had three other retirements announced – one position which is vacant now, even though former city attorney Warren Kraft is technically still on the payroll until January, though not working – while the other two future retirees are still on the job. But it seems that, for a number of reasons, a city manager should have some say in shaping his staff, making the need for a permanent city manager search more important at this time than it was when the council first decided to seek an interim, then permanent manager.
I also understand the issue of ethics in this matter – that an interim position was advertised, candidates applied and finalists have been announced, making it important for the council to make good on its word and see that process through. But three of the five candidates are applying from out of state. It doesn’t make sense to think they would be willing to make such a relocation for a temporary position; and I suspect they may have hoped it would evolve into a permanent gig once here and they proved themselves. Another candidate, Doug Pearson, ironically – and coincidentally – announced his retirement from Chamco, effective September 2008, almost immediately after his name was announced as a finalist. He cited a desire to pursue other opportunities which have recently availed themselves to him. Might the possibility of a permanent position with the city be one of those “opportunities?” Or are there other opportunities altogether which would take him out of the running for the city manager’s slot?
Councilor Dennis McHugh said he believes the work the council did prior to the finalists being announced was “for naught.” Given the reasons stated above, I would think just the opposite. Just as these candidates were interested in a temporary position, I’d be willing to bet that most would be just as, if not more, interested in a permanent one. Granted, the criteria may be greater and, therefore, the finalists already named may not be what the council would be looking for on a permanent basis. But I would have hoped that even for an interim position, the council sought excellence and high standards in the applicants. If so, then the work already done was not done in vain.
Though opinion polls are unscientific, those who have responded to polls asking whether to abandon the search for an interim and move toward finding a permanent replacement in the city manager’s office have said that is the route to go.
Others, including councilor Paul Esslinger have expressed concerns over a heavy workload for an extended period of time for acting manager and the city’s personnel director, John Fitzpatrick. While that is a valid concern, Mayor Frank Tower has said they will have to do what’s necessary to spread his workload. Esslinger also cited a possible referendum and concerns about a permanent city manager search taking about three times as long as an interim city manager search. In its wisdom, the council has put the search on hold until the referendum issue is decided. In order for there to be a referendum question on ballot about the form of government, a minimum of 3,682 signatures would have to be gathered and filed with the city clerk’s office by Jan. 17. A citizen group will meet next Tuesday night at the Oshkosh Public Library to see about organizing such an effort.
And insofar as a search for a permanent manager taking three times as long as a search for an interim manager, one could easily take a more positive outlook and say “We only have to do most of the work and go through the hiring process once.”
Since the search for a permanent person isn't going to get underway for a minimum of two months, could the council have waited until Tuesday night's regular meeting to decide this issue? Certainly, but I doubt it would have changed the outcome of the vote. All things considered, it just seems that the move made by the majority of the council this morning (Esslinger and McHugh dissenting; Tony Palmeri could not make the meeting) is the smartest approach, given recent and ongoing developments in the city.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 12:13 PM
2 Comments:
While the timing of it all seems a little strange, I have to agree with your assessment of the situation. Makes more sense to just look for a permanent manager rather than go with an interim for 6 months or more and then do it all over again to find a permanent person.
I'm doubting there will be a huge group of people looking to change the form of government anyway. There just seems to be no real "buzz" about it out in the community. I guess we'll have a better idea after next Wed.
The meeting to discuss the referendum is on Wednesday Nov. 14, 7 pm, Oshkosh Public Library meeting rooms A&B.
Post a Comment
<< Home