Mike Siminski/Guest Commentary | Posted: Sunday, July 6, 2008 12:00 am
Last month, the City Council acknowledged, with deep regret, requests for retirement from our city administrator and city attorney. Council subsequently announced selection of Laurel Barcelona and Matt Granger to fill these positions upon departure of current incumbents.
These actions came after lengthy, careful and thorough deliberations in closed sessions.
There has been criticism that these actions did not occur in public, with an opportunity for citizen input. Although I do not agree with these comments, I do believe the council could have done more 7 after the fact 7 to explain our considerations and general basis for the actions taken.
First, the public should note that for several years succession planning has been an emphasized performance factor for both jobs. Annual evaluations have reviewed actions by both incumbents to assure continuity in city leadership after they leave. They have groomed their successors well.
Second, the public should be aware that, throughout the process, council discussed job requirements and qualifications/experience of those thought capable of filling these chairs. We frequently referred to strengths and weaknesses of incumbents and their predecessors.
Not only are these type of candid discussions allowed by law to be private, but good management practice and common decency dictate that such discussions not be aired publicly.
Lompoc has only one-third the funds many other cities our size have to spend on general fund salaries. Police and fire repeatedly remind us how underfunded are their positions.
The situation is worse at the top. San Luis Obispo 7 roughly same size as Lompoc 7 currently pays their top administrative position ,50,000 a year more than Lompoc. A former Lompoc assistant administrator now earns ,25,700 more than we pay in a city half our size. Tehachapi, population 11,000, is advertising for an administrator, citing a salary higher than we currently pay. Concord just announced a new administrator with a salary over ,200,000, and far greater benefits, including lifetime health benefits after retiring. One recruitment firm told another councilman we would not receive viable applicants unless we added ,50,000 to our salary. The California Cities magazine advertises a half-dozen or more administrator vacancies each month, most with higher salaries. Similar conditions exist in the city attorney field.
Had we gone outside, we would need a recruiting firm to advertise, field questions, evaluate applications, verify resumes and check background and references. This firm would tell us the top six candidates, and we would pay travel and living costs for each to visit for interviews. Relocation costs of anyone selected from another city would be paid by the city.
The Lompoc City Council unanimously concluded that in-house candidates were very capable and would make excellent leaders. They would benefit by continuing to prepare, using the time remaining with Gary Keefe and Sharon Stuart as mentors.
Next year, we face a very critical budget process, with needs for fuel costs alone exceeding current budget amounts by hundreds of thousands of dollars. We face a loss of income from sales tax, auto dealers and by all local businesses.
Property tax income is also shrinking. Next year we face negotiations with four employee groups, and we face the loss of other key employees in our aging workforce. We do need good leadership to meet these challenges.
Some may not agree with the decisions of council. But all should know the decisions made were fair, received full and thoughtful debate, and were made considering needs of the city.
The final decisions of the council were unanimous, and there is no question in any of our minds that we have selected individuals who are extremely capable, have respect of fellow employees and who can best provide the leadership Lompoc deserves.
Mike Siminski is a member of the Lompoc City Council.
July 6, 2008