I agree with you 100% until you get to the formal search process discussion.

In business, in my view, it is always better to promote from within when possible then to bring in an outsider. Either Hamilton has done the job and should be promoted or he has not and then use the search firm.

Using a search firm to see who else is out there is not fair to Hamilton. Wasting $20-30k for a search firm and finding out Hamilton is still the best candidate is not fair to the taxpayer.

If the Alderman believe he has done the job, don’t waste the time, formality, effort, and money for a search firm.

Also, give me a break, it is the City of Park Ridge that he is running; the only reason it is so screwed up is because of previous mayor(s) and previous City Managers. To quote a previous president, ‘the job is not rocket surgery or brain science!’

EDITOR’S NOTE: Promoting from within can be a preferred way of managing, but that assumes the employee being promoted has a sufficiently significant track record with the employer on with to base a decision. We think it remains a fair question whether Hamilton has established such a track record.

Hamilton knew exactly what he was getting into when he took the job last summer for a term scheduled to end in April, so the deal he was offered back then is inherently “fair” by virtue of his acceptance of it.

We heartily agree that the City has been screwed up by “previous mayor(s) and previous City Managers” – but aided and abetted by inept, lightweight, rubber-stamping aldermen.

Can anybody please tell me where elected officials like Sweeney get the idea that government employment must be a permanent, no risk, guaranteed pension, “secure” deal?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Assuming they aren’t just plain stupid or lacking in judgment, our best guess is that their minds become addled by OPM – the ability to spend Other People’s Money.

First off, there is no reason to give a 1-year contract to the City Manager. He makes an excellent salary. I hope Sweeney just meant to give him a permanent position and not an actual 1-year contract.
Didn’t we learn from the cost of Hock’s sweet deal? Secondly, there was zero transparency about Hamilton’s hire. By most accounts, Hamilton is doing a good job in a tough spot. However, since he hired by the Mayor and his supporters, it will always cloud what Shawn is doing. Rumor has it that he was/is close friends with one of the Alderman as well. Can anyone confirm this?
None of this sounds like transparency or good government. We do not want “Yes men” of Alderman or of the city staff.

EDITOR’S NOTE: First off, Sweeney clearly and unmistakably wanted a new 1-year contract for Hamilton, not just a permanent position for him. That appears consistent with Sweeney’s view of government employment, as he has expressed and demonstrated it on other occasions.

Secondly, as we noted in the post, the Mayor should have engaged the Council in the process of interviewing the candidates for Acting City Mgr. rather than doing it himself. Nevertheless, Hamilton was chosen by the Mayor and approved by the Council only after the position was publicly posted and 12 applications were received and considered by the mayor, as further described in our 08.01.12 post.

So labeling that process as having “zero transparency” is just plain wrong, because the Council approved Hamilton’s hiring by a 5 (Alds. Sweeney, DiPietro, Smith, Knight and Mazzuca) to 2 (Alds. Raspanti and Maloney) vote, without even the 2 dissenters arguing that they needed more information about Hamilton to vote on his appointment.

We understand that Hamilton is a friend of Ald. Mazzuca, a fact that we also understand was known to the other aldermen when they voted on his hiring. We don’t think that fact disqualifies him from being considered for the permanent city manager position, however; but if you or anybody else does, they should either tell their aldermen or show up at a Council meeting and say so.

No one said it disqualifies him. Mayor “transparent” seems like he may have a little “Politician-itis” as well.

Let’s the get the pencils and scorecards out:
The Mayor has 5th Ward Alderman voting with him every time. The Mayor has appointed the 6th Ward Alderman. The 6th Ward Alderman’s friend then gets appointed to a lucrative, and important position.

Hamilton may be doing a good job, but, you can’t say your eyebrows aren’t raised.
I’m not accusing anyone of anything unethical, but I hope you apply your “Watchdog” sense to the current Mayor as you have done in the past to others.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Too bad you can’t keep score: The Mayor never votes except to break ties, which has happened at most 2-3 times in the last four years. So to say that Schmidt has “the 5th Ward Alderman voting with him every time” is, once again, just plain wrong.

So what if Schmidt appointed Mazzuca (6th)? Unless you can prove that Hamilton wasn’t the most qualified of the 12 applicants for the ACM position AND that the 5 aldermen who approved Hamilton’s appointment were not exercising independent judgment but were instead just rubber-stamping Schmidt’s decision – which is ridiculous given that Sweeney, DiPietro and Sweeney would far more likely vote against Schmidt than for him – your “argument” is a sieve. No surprise there.

We apply our “‘Watchdog’ sense” to everything we observe and write about. If you can find a $300 contribution by Mazzuca to Schmidt a few months before Mazzuca’s appointment, and a $200 contribution a few weeks after the appointment – like there was with Jim Allegretti’s appoitnment by mayor Howard Frimark (currently an outspoken backer of Ryles for mayor) – let us know and we’ll definitely write about it.

We have had rubber-stamp aldermen as long as we’ve had aldermen. A couple cycles back aldermen were excoriated for NOT being rubber stampy enough for Mayor Frimark, so much so that he got several ethical aldermen to speak out against the ethics ordinance Mr. Frimark didn’t want to abide by. Eventually, he herded the sheep off the cliff by getting them to reduce their free representation from 14 to 7, which did nothing to usher in “smaller government.” In addition to rubber stampers for whatever Mayor is in the seat, you have aldermen now who have primarily distinguished themselves in supporting staff at any cost, no questions asked. Stop worrying about aldermen who coincidentally or reflexively agree with the Mayor or City Manager or Santa Claus and look at the effect of the vote on the lives of residents and business owners in this community. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The only reason Frimark could herd the sheeple into cutting the Council from 14 to 7 was because those aldermen who opposed him were political (if not also governmental) boneheads who so misplayed their 9-vote majority coming out of the gate (in May 2005) that they made themselves instantaneous lame ducks – so much so that, with the exception of Rex Parker (who got completely clowned by Frimark protege Tom Carey) and Frank Wsol, none of them even had the nerve to stand for re-election in 2007.

But you are right on the need to look at the ends as well as the means…but always being on the lookout for blind squirrels.