As our regular readers will attest, we’ve got more than a few complaints about how City Mgr. Jim Hock is performing (or neglecting) his duties as the City’s highest-paid – by far – public official.
The subject of one of those complaints was on full display at last night’s City Council COW meeting, where the discussion of Hock’s revised draft “Council Policy Statement 8: Labor Negotiation Policy” provided a good measure of entertainment – if one’s idea of “entertainment” is having bamboo splinters jammed under one’s fingernails.
Policy No. 8 is the latest iteration of what started out as Hock’s “Labor Negotiations Guidelines,” which he drafted in a manner so skewed toward keeping secret the terms of City union contract negotiations that it actually demanded that City Council “closed session discussions must remain confidential” [emphasis added] – even though such a confidentiality requirement would appear to violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”).
What Hock trotted out before the Council last night was a slightly toned-down version. Instead of requiring that closed session discussions “must” remain confidential, the new version provides only that they “should” remain confidential. But it does delete “the public” from those entitled to receive “timely and accurate information about the negotiations.”
Which raises the question: Why is Hock so flippin’ concerned about keeping the City’s union negotiations secret – especially from “the public” – after years, if not decades, of the City never having any labor relations policy at all?
We suspect it has something to do with the upcoming (in May) union negotiations, especially given how much flak Hock and Fire Chief Mike Zywanski caught from Mayor Dave Schmidt over the botched firefighters union contract negotiations, where Chief Z (with either Hock’s blessing or his neglect) locked the City into a set of negotiating “Ground Rules” that effectively gagged City officials and prevented them from reporting the progress of negotiations to the taxpayers.
Catching flak from the mayor, however, doesn’t seem to deter Hock, especially since he can usually count on almost unquestioning loyalty from Alds. Joe Sweeney (1st), Rich DiPietro (2nd), Jim Smith (3rd) and Tom Bernick (6th) no matter how inept (or deceitful?) his performance. And even Alds. Sal Raspanti (4th) and Marty Maloney (7th) have so far seemed more inclined toward averting their eyes rather than directly challenging Hock on even his more egregious conduct.
But last night Hock got grilled by the mayor and some members of the Council – including (gasp!) Bernick. Little Tommy turned the uber-snarl he usually reserves for the mayor directly on Hock after the City Manager bumbled and stumbled under questioning by Schmidt about the draft policy, before finally admitting that he hadn’t even consulted with the City’s labor counsel (attorney Robert J. Smith, Jr.).
So the Council deferred further consideration of Policy No. 8 until Hock can meet with Smith, presumably to gin up some disingenuous explanations for why this policy (especially its secrecy provisions) is actually a good thing for the City and its taxpayers.
And we’re betting that, by then, Hock will have had a private sit-down or two with Bernick to get the latter back on the reservation.
Meanwhile, we have to wonder just how whacked out (or duplicitous?) Hock must be when he drafts and recommends a City Council policy – which by its very nature is supposed to govern only Council conduct – that goes so far afield that it actually deletes references to “the City Council, and Council staff” from the “Purpose” section of the policy!
Do we really need a new City Council policy which doesn’t really apply to the Council but, instead, is designed to keep the public in the dark about union contract negotiations while also empowering “the City” (a/k/a the City Manager) to cut whatever deal he wants with “union representatives” over “the rules that will be used during the negotiation process”?
Do we really need a City Manager who acts like he can go “rogue” whenever he feels the urge, knowing that if at least five aldermen don’t have the cojones to sack him “for cause” he can only be launched with $120,000 in severance – compliments of the knuckleheaded employment contract given him in late 2010 by several now ex-aldermen and current Alds. Sweeney and DiPietro?
Is this, really, all you can get in the way of city manager services for $200,000+ these days?
To read or post comments, click on title.
4 comments so far
The City Manager’s imputed shortcomings don’t address the issue of whether the taxpayers of Park Ridge would be better off with or better off without the existence of Council Policy Statement No. 8: Labor Negotiations Guideline. I have reservations.
As approved by the COW (prior to being tabled), the Guideline would provide the mayor and one alderman official status on future Negotiation Committees. Aside from the practical matter of mandating that part time elected officials perform full time during the negotiating periods, it raises the practical issue of whether the alderman on the Negotiating Committee can vote not to approve a contract that he (or she) was responsible for negotiating.
As if that doesn’t do enough to undermine the oversight citizens expect from our elected officials, the Mayor’s presence on the Negotiating Committee raises the issue of whether he (or she) could, as a practical matter, veto Council approval of a contract that he (or she) was responsible for negotiating in the first place.
Over and above, the affirmative harm that could be done by the existence of Policy Statement No. 8 should it be adopted, the potential benefits to the taxpayers of Park Ridge have not been identified. The City Council may instruct the City Manager in the terms they would find acceptable in a contract without adopting a binding policy statement that might be used against the City in future negotiations.
The terms of the City Manager’s employment might be of interest. But, focusing on those terms removes the focus of the public away from the cost to taxpayers due to future labor negotiations. It’s possible to carp at the City Manager’s pay. But, labor costs are a significant component of the City’s annual budget. The taxpayers of Park Ridge would be better served if the City Council focused their attention on contract negotiations rather than lamenting on whether previous councils were too generous with the City Manager.
All city managers will be in a thankless position while they are negotiating labor contracts. But, it provides no benefit to take cheap shots at Mr. Hock for his failures to carry out Council guidelines at a time when the City Council is blurring what it claims it wants from Mr. Hock. Also, the City Council is in the process of approving an 11.11% property tax increase which will diminish pressure on the City Manager to keep future labor costs down. The City Council claims it wants good management from the City Manager. But, the City Council is preparing to fund profligacy during future contract negotiations. All of this adds up to incoherence on the part of the City Council. It’s unfair and, more importantly, misleading to heap blame upon Mr. Hock, while the City Council is asserting one thing while voting for something else. No policy statement can undo that damage. But, debating the policy statement and paying for extra legal council can camouflage can serve as a substitute for actual fiscal management.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Godfrey:
“[T]he cost to taxpayers due to future labor negotiations,” like the cost of across-the-board, non-merit based increases to non-union employees, are in large part the product of this City Manager’s mismanagement, coupled with his bizarre obsession with keeping things like labor negotiations secret from “the public.”
And by his continually foisting shoddy, half-baked work product (like Policy No. 8 ) on the Council, he effectively ensures that valuable Council time will be wasted reacting to, inquiring about, debating, correcting, revising, further debating, further revising, voting on, vetoing, and voting on the veto of things that never should have been submitted to the Council in the first place – like Policy No. 8, on which he didn’t even consult the City’s labor attorney before recommending its adoption.
You suggest that the Council focus its attention on contract negotiations “rather than lamenting on whether previous councils were too generous with the City Manager.” But the previous Council tied the current Council’s hands so that Hock can’t even be fired without risking a $120,000 severance charge – which, interestingly enough, is not that much less that the full 3% pay raise the firefighters are scheduled to receive over the next two years. How’s that working for you?
And if that’s not good enough for you, how about Hock’s mismanagement of the firefighters contract that cost the City an extra $6,000 AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS ALREADY APPROVED because he screwed up the effective/start date, and then tried to cover up his own (and another City labor attorney’s) blunder by simply rolling over on the union’s grievance? Our ripping him for that is a “cheap shot” only because it was only $6,000.
You can excuse Hock all you want, but he’s being paid over $200K a year to manage – not hold his finger to the wind, or wait for the Council to tell him what to do.
As for the possible 11% tax increase, as we understand it that won’t even cover the increased costs of the TIF. And the City would be in even worse financial shape if not for the fiscal responsibility and leadership shown by the mayor these past few years.
Hock is a schlub. Like Tim Skanky was.
An arrogant schlub, at that.
Proving once more that, when the wrong thing keeps happening, it’s because 51 percent of the elected officials we chose to have our backs have chosen not to.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Most of our aldermen over the past 20 years discharged the duties of their offices at about the level of “homeroom rep” on their high school student councils. Which is why Schuenke, and now Hock, do what they do with impunity. And we get the aldermen we get because the voters would rather watch the Kardashians (or the Cubs), or beef and moan about “Obama” or “Romney,” than focus on local government where they can actually have some positive effect.
There is definitely enough blame to go around.
We deserve public employees who work hard and can get the job done. The same goes for our elected officials. But it still all boils down to the voters. I’m still amazed that 5 of 7 races were uncontested, and that the 3d ward had no real candidate at all.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You must not have lived here when the Homeowners Party candidates regularly ran uncontested.
Your right, Hock acts like he wants the public left in the dark. Where I come from, that usually means somebody’s up to something.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Where we come from, too. Just like there’s matter and anti-matter, for Hock there’s transparency and anti-transparency; and he’s for the latter.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>