You probably read in Wednesday’s paper the move by some council members to eliminate the position of assistant city manager and that I voted against the motion.
First, I think the approach was deeply flawed. The issue was brought up at the last minute as addition to the published agenda; and not for general discussion, but for the purpose of voting on a motion “directing the city manager to draft a resolution eliminating the assistant manager’s position.”
I strongly believe that the appropriate way to raise such issues is to inform council and residents of the city at a public meeting that you would like discussion of a certain subject, etc. placed on the agenda for a future meeting. That way, everyone knows what will be coming up and there will be no surprises, no one will feel blindsided and the public has the opportunity to respond proactively and not after the fact.
Furthermore, I strongly believe there should be general discussion prior to development of a specific directive to the city manager, ordinance, or other item. The idea should be to allow for as broad as input as possible early rather than later.
At the council meeting I asked the maker of the motion to amend it to simply place discussion of the position on the agenda for the following meeting. I would have supported that and been willing to argue the merits for the position at the appropriate time. My request was refused.
The approach taken offends me, which I let my fellow members of council know on Monday, just as did the approach taken calling a special meeting on the Administrative Code, which came in the form of a letter rather than at a public meeting.
Frankly, doing things that way strikes me as bully tactics and it makes hard for me to trust some fellow members of council. I don’t think that is good for the city.
As for the call to eliminate the position, which is only eliminating the title, I don’t get.
The assistant city manager’s position is just one of many hats worn by Janet Gatesman, who among other things is also the director of Community Development. It costs the city nothing and is a cheap way to ensure continuity in the event of illness or any other absence of the city manager. Perhaps more importantly, I think it allows for better coordination at the highest administrative levels of the city.
Those who oppose the title claim it takes focus away from community and economic development. I don’t believe it, and I find that argument somewhat specious. I can’t help but wonder if there is not something else all together behind it.
And finally, the city faces huge issues such as the parking garage, long-overdue capital improvements and purchases, blight, declining tax base, etc. etc. Why are we creating controversies where there is no need? Sometimes, even if you don’t like something or want to change something, the best thing to do is to let it go and get on with more important things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
John, I support this blog and you whole-heartedly on this issue. Keep strong.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say I was saddened by the impression I got from the paper's coverage of the overall isolationist political ideology - Oil City for Oil City and to heck with everyone else. Regionalism is the key to Venango County's survival in the 21st century.
What is the big deal either way?
Your post is the work of a true bureaucrat. And the whole controversy goes a long way toward explaining why Oil City has so many problems.
Mike,
I don't think I follow your point about isolationism coming through in the story. I don't think that is what was intended by anyone. There is a belief -- and I share it -- that the city could benefit from someone or some agency that's sole focus is on the city as a "micro" part of the lager "macro" aproach. OC has partnered with ORA, which has been most helpful and I hope continues, but again, the agency's prime concern is the bigger picture.
I absolutely agree with you that regionalism is the key to Venango County's survival in the 21st century.
Anonymous, perhaps I make more of it than I should, but I think approach, how you do things matters. I think it important to present things so that everyone knows they are coming, notably the public. I'm not sure if I follow what ou mean by saying it explains why Oil City has so many problems.
My apologies - after re-reading the article this morning, I see that I misunderstood the point that was being made regarding the Chamber.
Well, I was the lone dissenting vote to the resolution eliminating the assistance city manager’s position. You win some, you lose some.
If the title was more than just one of many hats worn by the individual who had that title, if there were any cost savings to the city or definitive increased efficiencies, I think there might have been a reason to eliminate the title, or position. Since there were not, I just don’t get it.
Still, it made sense to four others and that’s the way it is.
John, sorry I wasn't able to support your efforts yesterday afternoon, but a "bug" got the better of me just prior to the meeting. You and Malachy did an excellent job of pointing out the fallacies of their arguments about getting rid of the Asst. Mgr. title for Ms. Gatesman. Anyone close to the situation understands this was personal and had nothing to do with directing her attention to other more pressing matters, ie. economic development issues or other community development programs. Ms. Gatesman could have taken hold of those additional duties while still having the title of Asst. Mgr. This wasn't about what she was doing or about what she could be doing, it was about embarrassing her and continuing to harass her because they can't get rid of her directly. Thank you for giving it your best shot; your discourse deserved a better audience than those on the other side of the vote.
John - I only know what I read in the paper and like everyone else I am sure, it leaves us scratching our head. I do think the real reason behind all this was the feeling that Janet is not agressive or effective in economic development so this would highlight what she does in that arena going forward. I would agree that a better approach would be to document and address where she isn't fulfilling her job objectives and then take corrective action. This approach is back handed.
I will also say that Oil City desperately needs a highly motivated and aggressive person in the economic development position. I am not sure you could describe Janet as a "mover and a shaker". We need one in OC. I suppose some feel that desperate times require desperate measures.
You are right, OC's revitalization is not coming from the ORA and won't be.
John - Since many of us don't know what the functions of that position are, I think it's unfair to judge another person's job performance. If it was not going to save money and the direction for that person comes from the City Manager, then what is gained through eliminating a title? I feel the City Council should be providing direction to the City Manager and let HIM direct his staff, as I gather is his responsibility.
James,
It certainly would be beneficial to have more focus on Oil City’s economic development on a “micro” level as I mentioned in my response to Mike.
However, I do believe even with that the best way to succeed is as a partner with the ORA. They can bring resources far beyond what is available to the city alone. The ORA is been very helpful with the Main Street effort, the Brody block and much more. However, the ORA must always look to the big picture and not Oil City alone, which is the task we face at the community level.
I largely agree with the last poster’s comments, as expressed throughout this particular issue of the blog.
It is time though to move on. My take on the assistant manager’s title was not shared by the other members of council. I regret that, but the issue has been decided. The city has a lot of needs, and I and the rest of council need to get on with other work.
John, I agree with your comments on the need for the ORA. I will say though that if you are just on the outside looking in, you hear about a lot about studies, plans, groups,etc. and see a lot of computer generated "what could be" pictures. We have seen and heard all this for years now.
I would challenge Janet to prove her retractors wrong and work to co-ordinate all the players in all these groups and make a name for herself much like Tracey Jamieson or Ronnie Beith has done in Franklin. She should turn her focus completely off assistant manager duties and focus on development like a laser beam. I look forward to seeing her name in that paper, checking off her accomplishments.
Post a Comment