City of Jacksonville: Updates on the Council in Crisis
The Jacksonville City Council is still reeling from the aftershocks of the 4-2 vote to dismiss former City Manager Kristoff Bauer and revelation that Council-member Reva Sullivan may have been attempting to contact him inappropriately.
Bauer wrote a letter to the editor of the Jacksonville Daily News declaring his intent to waive any right to privacy regarding the issue. Council-member Willingham also wrote a letter to the editor.
While dealing with this stress, the Council has become unable to make good decisions. During a workshop today, the Council voted 4-2 in favor of delaying a contract for the development of a Parks and Recreations Level of Service/Master Plan. The four voting for delay (Willingham, Sullivan, Williams and Thomas) are the same four which voted for Bauer’s ouster. The contract would cost $112,000, which is quite a bit of money. The City had already budgeted this money and allocated it to the Parks and Recreation division. There would be no new monies required to support the contract. No funds would be shuffled from one project to another or from one division to Parks and Recreation. The lack of a valid Parks and Recreation Master Plan has already cost the city money in the forms of denied grants. Without this plan, the City will not be eligible for grants in FY 2010, either. This decision has cost the City and it’s residents tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars while not saving tax-payers any money.
The City of Jacksonville and its residents are suffering because of 4 members of the City Council holding the community hostage. Unfortunately, there appears to be no provision for recall elections. However, there is relief in sight: Election day is less than 5 months away and the seats held by Willingham, Sullivan, Williams and Thomas will be up for election. All the City needs are candidates to run.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:40 am
An interesting comparison is the cost for the Parks & Rec Master Plan and the severance pay given to Bauer. They’re roughly the same amount, but I think I’d rather have the plan.
You had mentioned that you requested Bauer’s released information. Do you happen to already have a copy of his contract? Should have already been public record. I was wondering what the terms were, specifically when the contract would end.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am
James,
That is an interesting comparison and quite accurate, too. Not to mention that there will ne an added expense for hiring a “head-hunter” to recruit and filter a new manager.
I’ve requested information from the City Clerk’s office regarding Bauer’s contract and will pass on what I find.
In case you haven’t heard, there’s a delay in releasing the records on Bauer’s dismissal. City Attorney John Carter is concerned that there are liabilities to the City with the release Bauer sent.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
James,
I’ve gotten Bauer’s employment contract from the City Clerk’s office.
Some quick notes:
– There is no defined end. It became effective May 1, 2006.
– The terms of termination are interesting:
Does a closed session constitute a “duly authorized public meeting”?
– The City isn’t required to pay the severance package if termination is due to “willful or gross negligence, dishonesty, unethical conduct, or for the conviction of any illegal act related to the duties of his office…”
– The $500 car subsidy was in place of a government-owned car. I would imagine a City Manager might need to drive all over the city, so giving Bauer a stipend to require him using his own vehicle would keep the “wear-and-tear” costs off of the tax-payer’s bills. Sounds like a winner of an idea to me.
All-in-all, it seemed like a fair contract to all parties…
June 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I’m surprised it didn’t have an end to the contract in terms of years. Many times managers have contracts that must be renewed. That renewal time is when the manager can be let go without paying a severance.
The “duly authorized public meeting” was probably met. There was a workshop that day that went into closed session. The workshop is *mostly* available as video online. I say mostly because it ends when they went into closed session, though they must have went back into open session to end the meeting. I thought they would have to do something once the meeting reconvened to fire him, but I may be off.
I also saw that they could have suspended Bauer at a much lower threshold (e.g. neglect of duty or incompetence) than for termination without severance. If this was a long-term issue, that may have been a method to correct his behavior as well as foreshadow it for the public.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:21 am
You go Tom! Sounding more like a fellow Republican everyday…
June 27th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Thanks for commenting, BrainOn, but I don’t sound or think like a Republican.
And you know better!
October 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
[...] A: In June 2009, thanks to Thomas Brock who posted it on his blog. [...]