Lame Duck Council Throws a Rock at the 2008 Council
A former, fellow retired city manager friend of mine, Bill Christopher, recently wrote in his column an article about “lame duck” city councils. The thrust of his article was that the time between the election of new council members and their taking of office was months too long. His reasoning was that a lame duck council would have the opportunity to sabotage the wishes of the voters and the new council if they chose.
I personally thought that the time from the November Election Day until early January was beneficial because it provided the newly elected officials with time to get up to speed on municipal activities. I didn’t feel Bill’s concern was any big deal until Friday when the agenda for the Northglenn Council’s meeting of December 13th was posted.
The current majority has proved Bill right. First, an outgoing member of the council, Rosie Garner, has sponsored an ordinance limiting volunteer board and commission members to two terms. With all the trouble the city has had for years obtaining volunteers, this maneuver is a slap in their face. It is also unneeded since the council appoints residents to the advisory bodies. If they want someone off, don’t reappoint them.
Second, the urban renewal authority had two advisors for many years. In April 2006, the Mayor decided to reward two former council members who had just left office by creating and appointing them as advisors. Now the Mayor wants to appoint a soon-to-be former council member, Rosie Garner, as an Advisor before the new council is seated.
The third item on the agenda is one the residents should never forget or forgive because of the precedent that is being established. Anyone who has regularly attended council meetings knows that the city manager and some of his staff members have been at odds with some of the present council members and visa a versa. Evidentially, the current majority has concluded that the manager needs more protection from the new council than exists in his present contract.
The existing contract provides for the standard six months of severance pay should he ever be terminated. The amended contract on the agenda increases the severance payment to nine months. An increase in the length of a severance period is unheard of during the term of a city manager’s contract. Because of the timing, it is clear that the council’s current majority intends on throwing its first rock at the 2008 council.
The city manager’s compensation is also being modified. His base salary is $120,000. Evidentially the sports scene is upon us because he also received a $15,000 signing bonus. After four months of service he received a bonus of $3,000. It was repeated after eight months of service for a total of $6,000. For 2007 he will receive a total of $141,000. Excluding the signing bonus his compensation is $126,000.
Per the proposed contract amendment his base salary will be $130,000. There will also be two bonuses of $4,000 each; not $3,000. Projected compensation for 2008 will be $138,000 or a 9.1 percent increase.
The cost to the city and residents for this lame duck maneuver increasing the severance period by three months is $32,500, salary only, should a termination occur in 2008. Since the manager will not complete his first year until January 11, 2008, why are Mayor Novak, Jill Parsons, Rosie Garner and Mike Martin taking this action now?
The reason put forth by the sponsors is that the new council will not have worked with the manager and therefore they are in a better position to judge his performance. In reality, two out of three members of the evaluation team, Novak and Parsons, and six out of nine of the 2008 council members will remain unchanged.
When you hear calls for unity on the city council in 2008, check back on who voted in favor of these agenda items on December 13, 2007.
Figures! We need to change the rules and then work on getting rid of our current mayor. No wonder Used Car Salesmen are rated ABOVE politicians. She and her cronies are prime examples. What does it take to reverse any action this people take, short of lynching. So much for their lies about having Northglenn residents their main concern.
Reply to this
Don,the only reason we have the mayor we do know, is she was not up for re-election.When you are riding a horse that 2 out of 3 people are against,you usually get thrown off that horse.
Reply to this
9 months of severance for a manager who has been around as short of time as ours has is a joke.He could be the best manager in the country(which we have know way of knowing in this time frame)and it would be to soon to lock him into this type of security.Thanks to the defeat of the rec center,people are watching this council closer than ever and I believe poor judgment will be very,very evident.
Reply to this
"Fellow Retired" City Manager? Bill Christopher had a 30-plus year track record of great success, at Westminster, and retired at "the top of his game".
You had, what- a couple of years at Federal Heights? And then you were fired?
Using the phrase "Fellow Retired" to link yourself to Bill Christopher seems a bit "grandiose" at best, and painfully dishonest at worst. But since you opened that door, I believe the residents of your Ward "deserve" to know exactly WHY you were fired from Federal Heights... so I believe I'll spend next weekend constructing a website dedicated to "watch-dogging" YOU (and the rest of your new "council majority"). And I think that the very first post will be the "highlights" of your termination letter from Federal Heights. I believe it will open some eyes as to who you REALLY are and the dubious "skills" you bring to the table.
And concerning the City Mannager's contract revision- the only reason the severance package is of any concern is if you and your "croneys" are giving thought to terminating him. Are you? If so, why not have the courage to say so now? If not, again- have the courage to let your constituents know.
Reply to this
I'm just a regular Joe Blow citizen who helps pay for the operation of this city.Giving the city manager 9 months of severance pay for the few months of service he has given the city makes my eyes roll back.Hopefully he's brilliant,because he's to expensive to exchange.
Reply to this
Maybe I'm totally in the dark here,but as I recall hundreds of people voted for Gene.Any recall talk is a kick in the face to all those who voted for the man.Ward four had many signs in the area pushing Garner and the new rec center.I saw very few signs for Gene or in opposition to the center.However both were defeated {one by a landslide}the other was in the race.As I spoke to the residents in Ward Four it was evident how they felt about the new center and changes they wanted to see on the city council.All the signs in front yards was not going to change their minds.What I'm trying to say is,the election went the way the majority wanted it to go.Please do not discount the political process of voting we have in this great land.If things don't go the way you want them to go over the next 4 years, vote in a new council member.However don't throw mud in the faces of the hundreds of people who voted for Gene.Any idiotic talk of recall before the man has been to one council meeting does just that.
Reply to this