Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jayhawk]

It's bad enough that the new management in Congress set out to do one thing and already is breaking its own rules or promises such that in the end it'll be business as usual.

Now Sharon's government, guided by a new city charter that was supposed to lead to professional operations, seems to be falling apart as far as new ways of doing things.

It's been known for a year that the first city manager would not be moving to town within the required 1 year period, meaning he would be forced to quit. Instead of having the replacement search concluded before Jan. 1, suddenly not only has council appointed a temporary manager, but they've rehired the outgoing manager indefinitely as a consultant for the transition. A transition to a new hire that doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon.

Thus they seem to have found a convenient way around the law to keep the guy on board and delaying the inevitable need to find someone permanent.

Meanwhile, the official acting manager -- who is pursing a degree in public administration -- happens to be a fireman. Yes, the acting manager must be an existing city employee. But isn't part of the problem that the last two mayors happened to move up from the fire and police depts?

Somehow a city that needs new, professional, disinterested leadership seems to have fallen into the same old habits.

[JimV]

Jayhawk, I logged in here basically to say everything you said...only you said it more eloquently than I ever could.
 
The problem isn't the charter (which is actually an excellent document IMO)...it's the Five Stooges currently serving on City Council.
 
I have no beef with Tom Lavorini, whom I feel has done a decent job, but he has chosen not to move into the city and thus should be gone, PERIOD.  He might be competent, but he's also far from irreplaceable.  This setup reeks of a backhand move to get Bob Fiscus the "experience" necessary to be hired as the next full-time manager (why else would he working on an M.P.A.?).  I've never met him and for all I know he's a great person, but that doesn't change the fact that:
 
*There are plenty of qualified individuals out there who ALREADY meet the prerequisites of the charter (and would be willing to move for a $67,500 job--a VERY comfortable wage in this neck of the woods), and
*The LAST thing this City needs right now is another transplanted internal employee being handed the reins--especially one from the department that most needs to be restructured.  It appears the fire department favoritism is already set to continue with the hiring last night of two new part-timers (in spite of the city just laying off both a police officer--who bought a house in Sharon six months ago!--and a street worker).
 
The folks who actually wrote the HRC need to run for city council--NOW.  It has apparently fallen into the wrong hands.

[Jayhawk]

I have no beef with Tom Lavorini, whom I feel has done a decent job, but he has chosen not to move into the city and thus should be gone, PERIOD.  He might be competent, but he's also far from irreplaceable.

My thought, too. OK, he was good in some of the outside ideas he brought, but if the letter of the law says the manager must drive over the same potholes, get the same police response and have the same neighborhood problems as the people he governs, so be it. It should have come as no surprise when he applied for the job.

The idea that two nationwide searches failed to turn up anyone else with "the right fit" defies logic. If anything, the worst thing to start the charter era with was a known, temporary, placeholder manager. Followed by months or a year of further uncertainty.

This setup reeks of a backhand move to get Bob Fiscus the "experience" necessary to be hired as the next full-time manager (why else would he working on an M.P.A.?).

I was thinking the same thing. I admire anyone with the ambition to start with a working city position (firefighter) and work his way up to management. Hermitage's hinkson did similar from police chief to manager through higher education. In both cases it's far different from someone who drives a snowplow or firetruck and (without further training) runs for council, mayor or district justice.

The charter requires the manager to have 2 or 3 years of professional experience, and i suspect this was specifically to keep just anyone from moving up into the job without some real professional background. It would be interesting if this is indeed just a back-door way of having the acting manager in the position "temporarily" (with the out-of-towner on paid consultancy) so that after the requisite 2-3 years junior says "hey, i've got the on-the-job experience, and i just finished my degree, so i'm qualified". That certainly wasn't the intent of the charter's qualification requirements. It was intended to attract an experienced professional, not to elevate some clerk into the job over time.

*The LAST thing this City needs right now is another transplanted internal employee being handed the reins--especially one from the department that most needs to be restructured.  It appears the fire department favoritism is already set to continue with the hiring last night of two new part-timers (in spite of the city just laying off both a police officer--who bought a house in Sharon six months ago!--and a street worker).

I shed no tears for the street worker, because she can turn enough tricks in one night to exceed what unemployment pays.

The FD has somewhat of a legit case i that they took concessions and added work in the latest contract in exchange for a manpower guarantee. But i'm curious about the math involved with OT and extra hirings to replace the fulltimer who is suddenly missing from the department because he has moved upstairs. Sometimes filling in (especially via OT) costs more than having a fulltimer.

The folks who actually wrote the HRC need to run for city council--NOW.  It has apparently fallen into the wrong hands.

At least one or two of them ARE on council, which just makes it worse. It's sad but not surprising that such a promising change in the way things are run would turn into [crap] so quickly. And it's unclear whether it's by devious scheming or just by incompetence and lack of civic leadership. Probably the latter.

[Lifetime]

Connelly was on the HRC I know... and I for one.... think this Home Rule problem is but another problem we will encounter.
 
1) everybody was "worried" about the "good ole' boy" set up in the mayorial form. Well folks.... HR does not and did not stop that. When 2 or more people serve together, there is a form of camaraderie that is created...happens at all levels. So...this didn't change.
 
2) At least in the Mayorial form WE KNEW they lived in the borders of the city, or at least had a "residence".
 
3) I see our only problem as being..... "fancy cooking and rearranging" of our books and the willingness to "bet" on "future" income. If one thing stuck of all the rules in life that I hear...there is always something to be said about .... "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush." We counted on Money we did NOT have, and we ASS-U-MEd the rules would remain the same. In this environment, some failed to realize that juggling the books means also juggling the lives of the residents of this community. So... $=lives.
 
I talked to Mr. Lavorini and many regulars at the city meetings who were almost giddy at the thought of maybe changing the residency rule for him. I told him I was against that all the way. If he would have gotten the waiver...how long do you think members of the Fire and Police Department as well as others under the residency clause would be running to move as well? Not that we presently do NOT have "employees" of the City paying for an apartment or likewise local address and yet, their have residence elsewhere.... but at least, until caught, their money for a residence is in the city of Sharon.
 
Picture the employees of the city of Sharon allowed to move outside the City. Hmmm given the economy, a few questions come to mind... Who will buy their old home...or for that matter...rent it? What are the chances the new occupant is in the same wage level as the employee who left. I am seeing properties that could be empty or worse. I think and have always believed...if you take a municipalities tax money in wages, you should live there. Don't even get me started on teachers....
 
Also, I don't want to hear.."Well you just want us to pay our own wages by living and paying taxes in the city..Yes I Do and what is your FREAKING point??? Our MILITARY pays INCOME TAXES( other than in a combat area) that go into THEIR wages... so, the process isn't good enough for YOU??? But for them???
 
I am a believer that if you want to be a part of a community for public employment, the rest comes with it.... MAN or WOMAN UP and have some "skin in the GAME". and quitcherbitchen. As far as city residents who are qualified but live elsewhere...maybe the City should unleash a local "headhunter" to actually go into the schools, from High School and even the GREAT CAMPUS of PENN STATE an talk to a few who show promise...ahead of the time, we might have a change at the "Head Table" and might be looking for a replacement. Let them know what we offer...even down to talk of the City actually filling an EMPTY House in an acceptable area as part of the package. Try to keep tham HERE for a change. I know we had talked about some help with a residence when the HRC started. But I digress.... didn't the Mayorial Hopefuls ALREADY have a home in Sharon?
 
Yup...we did REEEEAAALLLL WELL for ourselves. Next step...all volunteer Fire department and a Contracted " Security Force". Hmmm maybe we can see if Homeland Security has any "extra fencing. We could put up a "wall" and become a "Gated Community" One way in and one way out. Just joking  .... hmmmm or am I  ?
 
Folks, this ride ain't over by a longshot.... Anymore, we have to concentrate on the basics.. Family first and then the rest. The choices to do well or fall apart, are ours to make.

[JimV]

The idea that two nationwide searches failed to turn up anyone else with "the right fit" defies logic. If anything, the worst thing to start the charter era with was a known, temporary, placeholder manager. Followed by months or a year of further uncertainty.

My thoughts exactly.  IMO the Five Stooges have taken an excellent framework (which was supported by 2 out of 3 city residents) and basically reduced it to self-parody.
 
The best aspect of the charter was the restructuring of the Sewer Department, which is now run far better than any other time in recent memory.  The reason for that is mainly because the charter removed it from direct political control.  Hmm...what does that tell you?

I was thinking the same thing. I admire anyone with the ambition to start with a working city position (firefighter) and work his way up to management. Hermitage's hinkson did similar from police chief to manager through higher education. In both cases it's far different from someone who drives a snowplow or firetruck and (without further training) runs for council, mayor or district justice.
 
The charter requires the manager to have 2 or 3 years of professional experience, and i suspect this was specifically to keep just anyone from moving up into the job without some real professional background. It would be interesting if this is indeed just a back-door way of having the acting manager in the position "temporarily" (with the out-of-towner on paid consultancy) so that after the requisite 2-3 years junior says "hey, i've got the on-the-job experience, and i just finished my degree, so i'm qualified". That certainly wasn't the intent of the charter's qualification requirements. It was intended to attract an experienced professional, not to elevate some clerk into the job over time.

Agreed.  I don't know Mr. Fiscus and I'm not trying to attack him personally or question his potential as a city manager, but with so many candidates out there who are qualified to take on the job NOW, there's really no need for the city to have to endure additional uncertainty.

I shed no tears for the street worker, because she can turn enough tricks in one night to exceed what unemployment pays.

NO comment. 

The FD has somewhat of a legit case i that they took concessions and added work in the latest contract in exchange for a manpower guarantee. But i'm curious about the math involved with OT and extra hirings to replace the fulltimer who is suddenly missing from the department because he has moved upstairs. Sometimes filling in (especially via OT) costs more than having a fulltimer.

I think my concern boils down to this: I'm sick and tired of leaders always having special interests, which is why I'm leery of having a firefighter elevated to manager.  This sense of indebtedness to the police and fire departments respectively played a big part in bringing down the administrations of the last two Mayors, IMO (let's face it, even if Sharon had stuck with the strong-mayor government, there was NO way Bob Lucas would have been re-elected).  Again, I'm not trying to imply that Mr. Fiscus would/will run the city with only the interests of the FD in mind, but why is Council even going there when they've already had opportunity after opportunity to hire an outsider with no internal ties, an open mind (hopefully), and a collection of "best practices" acquired from previous experience...and somehow managed to squander them all?

At least one or two of them ARE on council, which just makes it worse. It's sad but not surprising that such a promising change in the way things are run would turn into [crap] so quickly. And it's unclear whether it's by devious scheming or just by incompetence and lack of civic leadership. Probably the latter.

You're right...both Connelly and Palanski served on the Charter Commission.  I think the biggest problem is the same problem that plagues politics at all levels (local, state, and federal): the people who SHOULD run all too often don't.
 
Modesty moment: Maybe it's time for me to start collecting signatures? 

[GROK]

Jim V,
I would support your entry into the political spectrum if you seriously are entertaining that.   

[GROK]

Sharon Herald.."Sharon council set the acting city manager’s salary Wednesday and hired  former manager Tom Lavorini as a consultant through the transition.
    Council members unanimously approved paying Bob Fiscus, acting city  manager, $4,166.66 a month for the temporary job. That’s about $50,000 a  year.
    By a vote of 4-1, council approved paying Lavorini $7,597 a month as a  consultant to work with Fiscus, who is in the process of getting a  master’s degree in public administration but is not qualified to do the  job long-term according to the home rule charter’s requirements."


Just so I have this right...Sharon is going to pay out $11,764 per month = 141 K/year for this duo to do the advertised job that pays out 67K/year ?!?

BTW, I too am strongly against this in-breeding tendency of local governance. We need FRESH blood ASAP!!!

[Jayhawk]

Just so I have this right...Sharon is going to pay out $11,764 per month = 141 K/year for this duo to do the advertised job that pays out 67K/year ?!?

That's how i read it, too. Not to mention having to cover for a missing firefighter, whether it's done with OT or parttimers.

And there'll be two people in charge (which one will make the decisions if they don't agree?) yet because they are just "acting", they really don't have much authority to make the kind of major decisions that need to be made to turn the city around. So nothing significant in terms of policy changes is likely, just more drifting along as is.

[JimV]

Just so I have this right...Sharon is going to pay out $11,764 per month = 141 K/year for this duo to do the advertised job that pays out 67K/year ?!?

That's how i read it, too. Not to mention having to cover for a missing firefighter, whether it's done with OT or parttimers.

And there'll be two people in charge (which one will make the decisions if they don't agree?) yet because they are just "acting", they really don't have much authority to make the kind of major decisions that need to be made to turn the city around. So nothing significant in terms of policy changes is likely, just more drifting along as is.

Well, supposedly the Lavorini "consultancy" isn't supposed to last the full year, but based on the following quote from the article om Thursday's Herald (which I just dug out of my recycling bin--oh, the things I do to stay informed) I'm far from convinced:
 
"Lavorini will work full time, at least for now.  Initially [Frank] Connelly said he'd stay on to help Fiscus in the first quarter.  Later in the meeting he said no specific time limit had been set for Lavorini's service."
 
Another interesting quote from later on in the article: "[Council] got about 60 applications prior to appointing Fiscus but [Ed] Palanski said none of them were a good fit for the city."
 
...None?  REEEE-ally?

[Jayhawk]

having set no time limit or maximum compensation, the consultancy is opened ended and for all intents and purposes infinite.

it would be one thing if 5 people applied, the pickin's were slim and it was clear that no one in his right mind would want to take the helm of this wayward ship at any price.

But 60 people indicates that there is no shortage of people who presumably have the minimum requirements and who, if they have a lick of sense, already googled the salary range. Surely a large number of them with the qualifications in public administration could do an admirable job just because they are experienced professionals and have the necessary skill set.

Even if someone leaves after only a year, it couldn't be worse than hiring someone up front is known will only last a year, then replacing him with two temps (one being the original manager himself) who have no true power or authority just be virtue of being indefinite seat-fillers in the position. All this is doing is putting off the tough decisions and policy directions and, if the right person IS out there, delaying getting him into the job.

[JimV]

Excellent editorial on this subject in Sunday's Herald (and this is coming from someone who doesn't often agree with the Herald editorial board.  )

[Jayhawk]

if i read that right, it's saying that the total cost for an acting manager + consultant exceeds the original cost of just a manager and that council deliberately budgeted enough for a full year of such mischief/expense.

In other words, instead of paying a fill-in less and maybe even saving a few bucks if there is a gap, it's all the pay of a FT manager and more.

You also have to wonder what difficult work there is to be done that requires a consultant on hand full time. The budget is finished for now, so it's basically just administration and oversight of the operations.

There were/are 2 or 3 local school districts that were between superintendents in the past couple years, school districts with budgets twice as big and hundreds of employees. Yet somehow they ran fine for months with a temp superintendent working only 2 or 3 days a week. I remember there being an editorial pointing out that this somehow worked fine, so why did they even need to have a FT replacement?

The other curiosity is that a person who was only on the job for a year is suddenly possessed of precious knowledge to be shared like an elder. If someone can become a seasoned pro in a year (with, BTW, no manager who trained him), why does it require an open-ended, FT consulting contract to guide the temp?

It all comes down to council screwing up the hiring process or being unnecessarily picky. In the end, the lack of decisiveness is just delaying important decisions over policy and the direction of the city.

[bluebomber]

Does anyone else think it is possible that some memebers of council already have someone in mind to be the next manager and are buying time for that person to make up their mind?

[GROK]

Does anyone else think it is possible that some memebers of council already have someone in mind to be the next manager and are buying time for that person to make up their mind?

It sounds like this Fiskus individual is that person. I detest the inbreeding that seems to go on here in Sharon politics. I am sure there were several promising applicants in the 60+ applications they had purportedly received. Let us get some FRESH BLOOD into this dying town.

[Jayhawk]

It sounds like this Fiskus individual is that person. I detest the inbreeding that seems to go on here in Sharon politics. I am sure there were several promising applicants in the 60+ applications they had purportedly received.

That was my original thought... guy is a year or two out from getting a degree, candidate needs a degree plus either 2 or 3 (i forget) years of experience... timelines coverge in that his 2-3 years experience happens to be in sharon. However, i've heard that this was not the actual plan. As if there was one.

But, wait, there's more. Heard this today: Even though council voted on a written motion on the agenda to pay the firefighter an extra $4K/MONTH on top of his FF salary, some are saying they intended it to be $4K/YEAR. Oopsie. Oh, that's very different.

Apparently congress isn't the only legislative body that votes without actually reading legislation, although in the case of congress it's 2,000 pages, not 200 characters.