Q: Please list the personnel documents you reviewed to determine Mr. Bauer had not been warned, counseled, or disciplined for misconduct.

A: I have reviewed Mr. Bauer’s contract.  There is a provision that allows the Council to suspend him without pay.  I believe that the council could have suspended him without pay which would have sent a message to him and the public that there were concerns to be addressed.  The suspension would have been public record and likely reported by the JDNews.  I have not seen any such report of a suspension.

Q: Please identify the persons with whom you have spoken to determine whether Mr. Bauer was warned, counseled, or disciplined for misconduct.

A: I have not spoken to anyone to determine whether Mr. Bauer was warned.  It would have been an exercise in futility as those that fired him made it clear that they would not discuss the matter.

Q: Please identify any times Mr. Bauer failed to get raises which may have reflected substandard performance, if any.

A: I reject the notion that failing to get a raise reflects substandard performance.  There was a councilmember who fired Mr. Bauer that said as much on June 16th, saying instead that in the present market people ought to thank God to simply have a job.

Q:  How many wrongful termination cases have you handled?

A:  I assume the relevancy is actually whether I claim to have any expertise in this matter.  I am not stating or implying that I have any expertise in this matter.  My opinions and beliefs are based on observation and common sense.

Q:  In those cases, were you able to determine the results of the case without speaking to any witnesses or researching any documents?

A:  Please see the above response, with the addition that I have researched the relevant document (Mr. Bauer’s contract).

Q:  When did you review Mr. Bauer’s contract?

A:  In June 2009, thanks to Thomas Brock who posted it on his blog.

Q:  Would it have been possible for his contract to require severance pay even if his performance was not satisfactory?

A:  Yes.  However, there are several issues here.  One is that the councilmembers who fired him did not harp on ‘not satisfactory’ performance as you do.  They claim that he refused to do the bidding of the majority of the board and instead was only adhering to the requests of individual councilmembers.  I believe this is not a question of performance standards, that is outright insubordination (as the councilmembers said on June 16th).  That is “willful or gross negligence, dishonesty, unethical conduct” which Section 6 allows for termination without severance pay.  You may believe him to have served unsatisfactorily—I would respond that he did serve satisfactorily and that was not the stated reason why he was fired.

The stated reason was that he was insubordinate in not following the direct demands of the majority of the board.  I believe that rises to the level required by the contract to terminate without severance.  By not pursuing that the Council gave away $112,000 of severance pay (our tax dollars) that it should not have.  However, I frankly do not believe it mistakenly gave away the money.  Instead, I believe that money was owed because the termination was for personal/political reasons—which is valid under the contract.  I believe they validly terminated it, I just don’t think they wanted to fess up to the reason.

Q:  Is it possible that the contract the BMW’s executed may have required gross mismanagement before the severance was forfeited?

A:  No.  The contract required “willful or gross negligence, dishonesty, unethical conduct or for the conviction of an illegal act related to the duties of his office” for the severance to be forfeited.  As explained earlier, I believe refusing to carry out the will of the majority of the board (as stated by the councilmembers who fired him) would rise to that level.

Q:  Why would the BMW’s execute a contract that required the city to pay for a car allowance for nine months after the city manager no longer worked for the City?

A:  I dislike your “BMW” language as it implies you are making this a political issue rather than a discussion of a policy decision.  Furthermore, I do not see how this is at all relevant to our preceding conversations.  However, because you earlier took such offense to me not addressing every one of your questions, I will answer this with my opinion.  The “car allowance for nine months after the city manager no longer worked for the City” would be part of the manager’s normal benefits received during employment and thus extended through severance.  I imagine part of that decision was for ease of contract. Stating that severance includes “all benefits then in effect” is easier to write and negotiate than to itemize each benefit and any future benefits added or removed since the time of signing the original contract.  I also imagine part of that decision was to make the contract attractive to the prospective manager.  Finding the right match is difficult and thus the contract can serve as an equalizer where there are issues present.  For instance, a political volatile municipality may have a history of fickle councils who often fire managers.  A prospective manager may seek the challenge, but understandably request some monetary assurance (in the form of a severance package).

Q:  Why would the BMW’s allow a severance package paying for membership in Jacksonville organizations for nine months while Mr. Bauer works in Fayetteville?

A:  I believe this is the same question as above, only more broad.  I would simply restate my same answer for the most part.  I would only add that the next contract may need an even more lucrative severance package as most applicants will now look at Jacksonville’s immediate history and be worried about politics causing them to unnecessarily lose their job.  In the advertisements for municipal managers you sometimes see a statement that ‘our jurisdiction is replacing a manager who is retiring after xx years, we have had only x managers in x years”—this is significant to applicants because longevity is desirable and shows stability.   Wantonly firing a well-liked and effective manager does just the opposite.

Q:  Since you have reviewed the contract executed by the BMW’s, is it one you would have executed?

A:  I am unsure without knowing all the relevant facts, particularly the caliber of the other other candidates at the time.  However, I do take issue that the contract was indefinite and not set for renewal at a date certain.  Having a renewal date allows for a board to remove a manager for personal or political reasons (as I believe this board did) without having to pay a severance package.  I think it is fair to have both a severance package (to protect the manager) and a renewal date (to protect the council); it is also necessary to retain the language that speaks of ‘willful negligence’ to protect the public from an ineffective manager.  I would have executed the contract if it included a renewal date.

The main idea is to reduce duplication and have one place builders can go for building inspections.  The County and each municipality have their own building inspection department that enforces the same state code.  Centralizing the administration could give cost saving and level of service benefits.

This has been discussed at the staff level at all the jurisdictions.  This has been given the go ahead at the political level to explore the issue further.  It will now be presented to the building community via the HBA on October 22nd.

A main issue, if this were to go forward, is at what level of service would the new consolidated service perform?  Each of the participating entities had an idea of what they were willing to pay and receive for their locality.  Some discrepancy was anticipated–one community may be willing to endure longer waiting periods for inspections if it meant a cost savings, just as another community might feel opposite.  A new standard would have to be developed and agreed upon.

I think this is exactly the kind of proposal that needs open discussion.  It is an opportunity to support the building community.  I believe we need to ensure that any new consolidated service is at the highest level of service–ensuring minimal waits and optimum quality (i.e. training and equipment) of inspectors.  A high level of service in this government function serves to encourage development.

I asked about staff’s feelings and they felt it was public records—they didn’t mind me sharing it.  My issue is more of how difficult it is to access.  I don’t like when municipalities keep information behind walls and only release it when asked.  Often times the public doesn’t know something exists and thus is not likely to request it.

I’ve avoided posting anything because I do not want to cause difficulties for staff–especially as just a candidate.  Government staff are often caught in a catch-22.  When they want public input it feels impossible to get people to turn out;  but when you could use some quiet time to work things out before politics gets involved, that’s when everyone calls with questions.

This management report included something that begun with little public attention, but is now into the stage of public input.  I’ll make another post to talk exclusively about this consolidation of building inspections.

October 8th, 2008 management report

1. What is your vision for the City of Jacksonville?

The current statement adopted by the City Council adequately encapsulates our community’s vision for itself: “A Jacksonville whose abundant natural resources, healthy environment, military presence, and vibrant economy make it the best place to live, work and visit.”  Any vision of success would also necessarily include Jacksonville properly handling its inevitable growth.

2.  What is the most important initiative the City Council can take to attract businesses to Jacksonville?

Jacksonville needs a comprehensive approach to attracting businesses.  This includes reducing the cost of doing business, having available real estate, highlighting amenities, offering incentives and presenting a clear image of who we are (branding) as a community.

The cost of doing business has increased in Jacksonville—most notably with water and sewer fees.  Redefining the burden between residential and commercial property would help in attracting businesses.

Available real estate is mostly a function of the market, but can be addressed through industrial parks, shell buildings, zoning and land use regulations.  For instance, the Downtown Masterplan highlights the need for higher density residential to encourage business development.

While more businesses are looking to amenities, this is not a cost effective way of attracting businesses.  In contrary, incentives can be critical when businesses are choosing between several similarly situated communities.

3.  The City has been authorized to enact a new occupancy tax with a portion of the revenue restricted for promotion and another portion available for projects to attract tourists to the City.  How should the City invest that unrestricted portion of the revenue?

The authorizing statute requires that a Tourism Development Authority be established to determine the use of the funds.  Furthermore the statutes require 2/3 of the funds be used to promote tourism and the remainder be used towards projects related to tourism.  As such, there is limited opportunity for any councilmember to direct the investments.  However, I expect that the funds to help support efforts such as the Museum of the Marine, Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Sturgeon City.

It’s amazing how fast this sneaks up on you—October 15th, really??

Today I received the questions:

1. What is your vision for the City of Jacksonville?
2. What is the most important initiative the City Council can take to attract businesses to Jacksonville?
3. The City has been authorized to enact a new occupancy tax with a portion of the revenue restricted for promotion and another portion available for projects to attract tourists to the City.  How should the City invest that unrestricted portion of the revenue?

I’ll be working on my answers in the following days.  I really like the format that allows for candidates to be prepared.  I hate formats that require candidates to think quickly on their feet–it’s just not applicable to the task at hand.  Candidates, if elected, will be required to be deliberate through the governmental process.  They won’t be tasked with making spot decisions–that’s the job of managers and other staff.  Asking random questions just puts people on the spot and results in weak answers that are more often designed to sound good (or perhaps sound the least bad).

I also asked the City to give me some information on the issue raised in question three.  The response was prompt and they provided me with enough material to get started.

Selecting the next City Manager and negotiating their contract is the single most difficult and important task the new council will face.  The City Manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city and as such is critical to the City’s successes.  The lack of a permanent City Manager places numerous handicaps on an already difficult process of providing services.  External agencies, as well as internal staff, tend move tepidly as already tenuous negotiations and projects struggle to move forward.  No matter how good an interim manager may be, unless they have the unreserved commitment from the Council in the form of a permanent placement, the efficiency of government will suffer.

I would address the issue of hiring a new manager by being open and cooperative throughout the process.  Though appointed, a municipality’s manager is often affected by public opinion (albeit sometimes vicariously through elected officials applying political pressure they are receiving themselves).  So it’s only natural that the public is involved throughout the process.  They need to know why decisions are being made if they are expected to understand and support future efforts undertaken by the manager.  Similarly, the selection process requires cohesion amongst the council members.  A dialogue needs to take place so that all council members can agree on a manager who can work with all present and future council members.  Of course there would also need to be a balance with the interests of the prospective managers.  Those applying for the position would likely want some anonymity to protect their current position and they would want a contract that would assure them that they would not be suddenly or serruptiously replaced.

What makes a good candidate is hard to define because it truly relates more to the residents than the candidates themselves.  The residents of Jacksonville, I believe, are intelligent, conservative and family-oriented.  They want councilmembers who engage them as equals, honestly presenting the situation and possible solutions.  The residents want good, efficient government.  A good candidate would reflect these traits when making decisions.

I would make decisions openly and based upon the best information I have available.  There are many difficult issues that our city faces every day.  I have not met any one person who has the answer to all or even most of the problems.  So a good candidate knows their own limitations, is able to listen to staff and the public, and works well with others.

Most candidates have key issues or pet projects which make them stand out.  While I see the selection of a manager as the most pressing issue, I recognize it as one that will be resolved reasonably well regardless of who is elected.  My sincerest interest is in ‘good government,’ almost in an academic sense.  I have worked at the Federal, state and local levels of government and have always enjoyed it.  I liked providing the best service possible to the public and that’s something I think would continue while on the council.  The growth of government alone has no value to me, but its improvement and increased efficiency are my highest ideals.  Like Olympic records repeatedly broken, there is a joy found in discovering new ways to get more performance where no else could find it.

There is no one definitive answer, as the decision to run for office is both complex and personal. Mostly, I wanted to take a step towards more open and efficient government.  Even when I worked for Onslow County government I felt a disconnect to the candidates running for office.  I had knowledge of issues, but found it difficult to judge the candidates.  At the time I wished they had websites and blogs like candidates in other North Carolina jurisdictions have had in the past.  I also disliked when candidates would attack one another or exploit issues that garnered votes but I thought to be issues that were ultimately dishonest or inconsequential.  I felt that with the $15 filing fee and my blog votejamesbryan.com, I could be an aid in helping myself and others gain a better connection with our government.

There are more personal reasons as well which mostly relate to my previous position with local government here in Onslow County.  When I worked for the County I felt like I was part of the whole which was providing quality and efficient services to the public.  I enjoyed it tremendously and have missed it dearly since entering private practice.  During my tenure with the county the commissioners voted to make it more difficult for their employees to run for office. Undoubtedly, a part of the reason for my decision was to know the great sense of patriotism and freedom one feels when filing to run for office.