Lafayette's City Administrator Gary Klaphake's job performance has somehow become a highlighted election issue, as opposed to the goals, successes and vision of the current and future Council itself. In the Lafayette News this week, two candidates are spotlighted, Alex Schatz (whom we know well) and Bob Brown (anybody have context on Bob?) . As I read through the articles I see the typical "What qualifies you for Council" question, an open ended (and hyperbole-inducing response by Brown) question on key issues, then a specific reference to Councilor and candidate Kerry Bensman's suggestion Klaphake should be replaced, and what do the candidates think of that.
Seriously?
What a lousy tone and topic to inject into a candidate debate. I know Kerry's felt strongly about this, and that's fine. He should pursue that as he sees fit. But for the paper to champion the cause of one candidate as an across the board campaign issue is way off base. This isn't a policy or vision question, as Councilors should address, it's a potential personnel choice, with an undercurrent of scape-goating and mis-applied responsibility. It's not even and off-base topic people know much about, like should Silver Mine Subs stay open late, or do we need another cop on Hwy 287, or where the heck's the Cheese Importers? Just asking the question asserts a premise most people aren't qualified to evaluate. I want to know what Councilors intend to achieve, not who they intend to hire and fire. It should be a solid assumption of the citizens the Council will direct staff and move people in and out as necessary to achieve their goals. The Lafayette News needs better questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I see your point, but I personally like the question.
I wish all of the candidates had the courage to participate in this blog. Those that do participate stand a much greater chance of getting my vote, even if I tend to disagree with them.
Not enough can be said about a candidate's willingness to actually debate a position. This is a trait I value highly because it leads to better decisions.
I think it’s a viable question for the candidates. It’s more than a personnel issue. Contrary to what many think, the City Administrator runs the town, not the council. Council sets a vision, establishes new laws/regs, and votes on various items, but the City Admin gets it done, or not, on a daily basis.
Much more can be accomplished in any town if the City Administrator is a dynamic leader. Should the Silver Mine issue have ever gone to a public hearing? Should the question of add’l traffic patrols on 287 have to go to Council (unless add’l funding is needed)? Should someone be holding the Cheese Importers to their agreement? Should someone in the city be seeking out potential developers for Countryside Village? Should someone in the city be meeting with potential primary employers? I contend these issues would’ve/should’ve been resolved or pursued by a strong City Administrator. I can assure you a private company paying the kind of money Lafayette pays would be expecting much more.
Very valid question, as the voters need to know what the candidates expect from a City Administrator.
What's weird about this is that LN did ask other questions. They chose to highlight that one.
So now I am in a quandry. Talk about getting great name recognition. My name is popping up on the front page and in front of every candidate's answer.Is that good or bad for me?
As for Dan's comment about "scapegoading and mis-applied responsibility", simply absurd. GK makes $140,000+ a year, gets a $500 a year car allowance, and free greens fees. One of the reasons the proposed budget is not as big a farce as it is is because of the ideas I gave him.
So here is my answer to the question, published here first. We were limited to 100 words so this is tight. (Thanks, D-B, you're right on target.):
"Let's be candid. The three council members not running for reelection and the current slate of candidates will not remove the city administrator.
City budget workshops reveal that even with taking money from the Emergency Reserve fund, drawing heavily on an Open Space fund, making extremely optimistic revenue projections, and with a FEMA grant of $320,000, the 2008 budget barely balances with a surplus of $17,000. No funding for traffic lights for dangerous intersections which had been postponed for years. Cuts in Library services possible by year end. Needed improvements in the Rec Center off the table. Worn out public safety and public works equipment not being replaced. Staffing of needed city services to remain unfilled. And voters are being asked to commit unknown future revenue over a period of ten years of over $5,000,000 plus interest for road repairs and traffic lights to replace money tied up in bad deals. All this fits the definition of a fiscal crisis.
With all the economic development in town, how could this be? Simply put, $5,000,000 of city money is tied up in three bad economic development deals. The Urban Renewal Authority continues to be financially crippled by one deal. The severance package granted by the city council several years ago has tied up another $340,000. The Super Wal-Mart now opened with a sales tax rebate of $2,300,000 is in effect. (I, with two other council members, was opposed because of the major negative impact it would have on the city finances. That time has come.)
The city administrator played a dominant role in what has occurred. He and his staff made the proposals and recommendations that have led up to all of this. Is this what you expect out of city hall? Clearly this is a wake up call that reform is necessary."
P.S. Employees with Cigna Insurance are now going to be "forced" over to Kaiser and will have to change doctors. Also, at the last budget workshop, the Finance Director did not understand the WM deal and misbudgeted the sales tax rebate.
Just another day at city hall.
It will be interesting to see how all the candidates answered this question. I agree with Dan's point about focusing on the issues, not personalities, but the candidates were free to say exactly that, or whatever they wanted to say about it.
By the way, the Lafayette News printed all questions they asked, but did not identify any sort of length limit or intent to edit answers. I assumed they would probably be printed and subject to editing, but the 100 word limit and other questions you're thinking of, Kerry, came from the Camera. Your answer above to the LN question, for example, clocks in at 302 words by my word processor.
My scapegoating angle comes from my dissatisfaction with the notion that any given staff person's performance should be implied to have more relevance to voters than the responsibility of the Council to behave as the Board of Directors to the town. The buck stops with them.
Kerry has been spotlighting his concerns with Gary's management style and decisions since before he was on Council, with numerous examples that should make people at least more curious if not outright upset.
But notwithstanding his concerns, As a voter I see the responsibility for the town's financial stability, future growth and services implementation as resting ultimately with the Council. In their name does staff march forward, and if things are messed up, they as a group need to agree on the level of mess up and the method of accountability. Is it fair to lump all dissatisfactions onto the City Administrator? Who does answer to? That's where I look for accountability.
The ways to consider financial issues from different angles and longer-term responsibilities is one of Kerry's strengths. I would argue managing the finacial status of the town and long-term sustainability of funding for services is the primary goal of the Coucnil, vision statements aside (I know, small town feel...etc.)
Well, with all due respect to Candidate Bob Brown (sorry, no context there), there is barely a person in town who follows City Hall and/or reads the Lafayette News that doesn't know about and have an opinion about the "fireworks" Kerry started in August.
Here is my full take on the question, as I submitted it to Lafayette News (the paragraph at the end was omitted for publication):
"The current City Administrator has been extremely effective at implementing clear direction from our City Councils. The current City Administrator has occasionally also been very effective at steering the City Councils to policies preferred by the City’s administrative leadership. In other words, our City Administrator is a good salesman.
"I believe our administration has at times needed to be more open, both in terms of disclosing matters of record and in bringing forth a full discussion of alternatives available to the Council and other decision-makers. However, I cannot say that replacing this City Administrator is necessarily a solution.
"If the Council wants the City Administrator to perform in a certain way, it remains the prerogative of the Council to direct the Administrator appropriately, or to set code and policy in a way that ensures appropriate action. Taking the issue of Gary Klaphake’s performance in absolute isolation, the City Council is most aware of their expectations and has consistently awarded raises and issued commendations to Mr. Klaphake. If unsatisfied based on performance during my term as a Councilor, I would first look to these periodic performance reviews to encourage the departure of the Administrator. I am uncommitted to any such action at this time."
Alex is correcton the questions and LN. Should have had my coffee first.
Just reacting to that "scape goading" comment.
With the Enron case, Tyco, Qwest, etc., it was the CEO and CFO called on the carpet. Not the Board of Directors. Councils function as a Board of Directors. However, over time the laws governing oversight and transparency has been improved and increased.
The Cheese Importer store and that urban renewal area and the stalled redevelopment of the former Walmart and Albertsons should be key issues. Maybe Gary Klaphake is part of what is happening with this large commercial area. But I want to hear from the candidates what, beyond Klaphake, they think is going right and wrong and what they would do to fix the problems.
The blog might be interested in this:
http://www.boulderweekly.com/?site_id=619&id_sub=10187&page_id=10187&pagenum=31#2
I was at Plaza Lafayette picking up our Tings fix for the weekend. The hardcopy Boulder Weekly was there. I tried not to notice all the cracks in the slabs in the celebrated atrium. $2.3M and going on four years now. No Cheese guys.
I was talking to city hall today. I have to correct one error. The reserve for the dity administrator's severance package is $540,000. What I have in writing was $200,000 or so less.
County commissioners Toors and Domenico will be presenting per the county resolutions on the fall ballot.
The blog might be interested in this:
http://www.boulderweekly.com/?site_id=619&id_sub=10187&page_id=10187&pagenum=31#2
I was at Plaza Lafayette picking up our Tings fix for the weekend. The hardcopy Boulder Weekly was there. I tried not to notice all the cracks in the slabs in the celebrated atrium. $2.3M and going on four years now. No Cheese guys.
I was talking to city hall today. I have to correct one error. The reserve for the dity administrator's severance package is $540,000. What I have in writing was $200,000 or so less.
County commissioners Toors and Domenico will be presenting per the county resolutions on the fall ballot.
Let's talk about Dan and Alex's comments.
The city administrator has had only one performance appraisal in front of the council. Not this current one. Jeff Monica initiated it and it may have been the first one in years. GK did not receive a bonus last year. So the term "consistently" is in error.
To Dan's point, he is talking in theory. In actuality, lay people as a rule have minimal education, expertise, and experience when it comes to dealing with city governmental issues. Including me. So there is a heavy reliance on the full time paid professionals who run it day to day. No different than a patient relying on the doctor or relying on a lawyer or cpa. In fact most don't even understand the acronyms used. I just have a tuned ear for the inconsistencies and inaccuracies (or else I'd be working at the Kohler plant producing toilets.) And my mentor in Economics won the Nobel prize.
Also the government bureaucrats do their best to keep elected officials from mucking around in the day to day business. A simple example is how it took King Soopers four years to put in the Baseline traffic signals by the library. KS was blamed for that. But what remained unsaid for four years was city allowed them open without putting in the lights with no penalty or timetable in the first place. Same with WM.
Or what you do when the Finance Director doesn't understand the WM EDA? Or when the city proposes a repaving bond of $9M and only cuts it when I raise h*** about it? Or when the URA accepts a redevelopment plan when there is no money to support it? Or three years ago when the Northwest Parkway commissioners denied it was heading into bankruptcy?
Last week's puzzler was the new security policies for the PD station just issued. It opened in May. And this week's one I can't even talk about.
So as a test, the Target agreement is being amended. The city did no post it. Why not get a copy and see if you can figure it out?
I don know if issue is the "talk of town". But wo folks contacted me today to thank me and offer their support. I did not know them before.
Also what Dan doesn't see is the slow indoctrination that takes place that the role of the CC is to protect the city government.
This is not just “any given staff person”. This is the City Administrator, the only staff member who answers directly to Council. I’m absolutely against Council getting involved in any other staff member’s performance, unless they believe the Adminstrator is not doing his job in managing that person.
The reason it’s an election issue is this, as I see it. I don’t believe recent Councils have done a good job of making the City Administrator accountable for missteps in city government. I’d like to be assured more Councilors would make him accountable.
Council has more responsibilities and a broader scope than any corporate BOD, as they are elected officials and represent the voters. (Please don’t argue that BODs are elected by and represent the shareholders, that’s naïve.)
But, like a BOD, Council should set clearly defined goals for the City Admin. Performance reviews should be conducted, at least annually, and performance gauged against those goals.
And, council needs to somehow break the self preserving bureaucratic thinking in City Hall that Councilors are just temporary pain-in-the-arses, and their queries just something to put up with. The quickest way to do that is to make the City Administrator more accountable for city performance.
Surrounding cities/towns should take note. It's easy for the blame to fall on elected officials, and that's what poor performing administrators like to see. But, the ground level work is done by the administrators, and they need to be held accountable.
Just to add some more fuel to the fire. D-B could not be more correct. And recently, Superior and Louisville changed city managers.
Let's take the WM deal. That was approved back in late 2004 (using memory here). It passed 4-3 with me opposing the terms. Now fast forward three years later. Only THREE council members remain from that vote. Berry and Phillips voted for it. Four of today's council members are new to the deal and I suspect don't even understand it, let alone the implications. Now we are in a major budget crunch which I predicted, partly because of the deal. The Finance Director who is new since then doesn't understand it. The Community Development Director has said King Soopers did not put a hurt on Albertsons. But I have seen the numbers provided by HER so she flunks Finance 1.01. Now she argues WM will have not effect. And no candidate except me will go near the simple issue that if the city administrator honchos a deal and three years later its a bust, he should be hauled on the carpet for it. Just like any CEO.
The Lafayette News asked me why I support the two $5000 bonuses to the city admin a couple of years ago. My response was that the true judgement call would have to wait until the actual reality set in. Now it has. And its ugly.
Councillor Phillips argues that more grocery stores increase the total grocery sales in Lafayette. If that was true, why has Target decided to drop its grocery section? Also if you follow the CPI, it is well known that there is significant food price inflation. So if folks can afford the price increase, sales revenue increases simply due to that.
So what happens in the real world is that the council changes every two years and the institutional memory is lost. I was present at the Cheese guys vision pitch for what is now Plaza Lafayette in late 2003. Now it is late 2007. No Cheese guys. And the city contract allows us to do nothing about it.
By the way, if I was so wrong about the WM deal, why was the Target/Desco one structured totally differently?
If Monica, Andresky, and Beckham were around today, we would be considering a new city administrator. It is not going to happen but I know for sure that city hall knows the spotlight is on it now.
Let me revise my observation. The City Council has the ability to initiate performance reviews of the City Administrator. And when the City Council has taken that initiative, it has resulted in positive reviews for Mr. Klaphake.
The case is made that the City has wasted money on economic development, cannibalized the City's businesses, and anchored the City to sinking commercial prospects on South Boulder Road. The City Council, in each case, made the final decision.
If we are truly alert to the reasons why risk and reward runs high in real estate development, the City Council must hold some responsibility for understanding what the City was getting into on South Boulder Road. This is exactly why we elect a skilled City Council. It doesn't hurt to have City Councilors who know that a development agreement should firmly lay down timeframes and cost provisions for critical development improvements.
There are a few preliminary questions one might ask in this situation. Do we agree that the City has made some mistakes? Okay. What level of damage has been inflicted? Who is responsible?
I think the bottom line is that heavy investment in South Boulder Road could be a problem for the City. Plaza Lafayette is struggling as a botique shopping destination. For a number of reasons, the City of Lafayette is slow to act on warrants for new traffic control devices. I agree that the City might not have enough market left to grow grocery sales.
And apparently, based on the size of the new Target agreement, the City is just as happy that groceries are not part of the sales at that location. If the City Council makes the wrong decision, accepting or declining a (very large for Lafayette) tax rebates-for-retail deal, who is at fault?
Alex raises an important question. Who is at fault when these errors are made?
The city council is composed of lay people, the majority of which at this time (as well as the candidates this year) may or may not have specific education, training, or experience in the matters of city government or related disciplines. I don't know a thing about running a police department, ambulance service, or fire department, water treatment plant, etc. Nor a golf course, rec center, library, etc. You get the point. But I know management, finance, budgets, and money.
That is why there is a well-paid city administrator, city department heads, and employees to do just that. That's the way the charter is set up. The only city employee who reports to the council is the city administrator.
So when I first got elected, my attitude was OK, these professionals are the "experts". Done the job for years. Got to trust them. Who am I to get in their face? Besides, this is a part time job. Now fast forward four years and it turns out several major recommendations that were made back then with a long time horizon of several years were clearly screwed up.
So what can be done when serious errors occur? Well, the first challenge is to try to find out what is really going on, the spinless version. Then to get an agreement that there was a blunder or misrepresentation. In the private sector and with publicly traded companies, one has the financial analysts, SEC, press, etc. all over them. With city government, nada. Zippo.
Let's take the Cheese guys. Several months ago the council changed the contract to a September 1 drop dead date. They had to open by that date in Plaza Lafayette. I asked the city admin and city attorney what if they missed that date. I was told, and this is on tape that there would be serious consequences to them. Fast forward to Oct. 1. Now we are told nothing can be done. City council response. Yawn.
Or I didn't know that the city admin could waive the installation of traffic lights in front of the library to allow King Soopers to open or hold their feet to the fire and make it happen first, avoidng a four year delay and a traffic mess. Until it came up with the new Wal-Mart. And he does the same thing, again. Only this time by raising h***, the traffic mitigation committed by WM was done in 30 days. (The city is going to be at least a year late on the lights.)
Or how do you explain to the Community Development Director that if someone is going to ask for a URA $30,000 loan, pull their credit rating first? Or the Public Works Director arguing for the last water rate increase admitting he made a $16,000,000 error in underestimating water revenue in his financial projections.
The over reaching issue is a simply this. City government does not hold itself accountable for the major blunders. In the private sector, the business goes out of business or the management gets the axe. In municipal government, it's as that pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna always said, "Never mind."
Bottomline, either the voters elect council members with specific expertise and the will to provide that oversight or we get an oversight committee of civilian experts to help. What the current council wants to do is all sorts of stuff while ignoring that what we have right now needs a lot of work.
Yes, a couple of years ago I gave the city administrator good marks. Now that I know more, have found out stuff that no one would tell me, and have gauged the results, obviously my opinion is different.
One of the common analogies used in this discussion is flawed. Council is not like a corporate board of directors.
Yes, they're responsible for oversight of city government like a BOD has oversight over a corporation.
But, corporate boards are comprised of people selected by the corporation because of their backgrounds. Corporations look for expertise specific to their needs and fill the board with that expertise.
In city government, council is selected by voters. Often selected simply because they represent a specific interest. Or, because many people know them, or have been exposed to them in other roles in town. Rarely selected because of their expertise, and more often because of their popularity, or the single issue they were elected to push.
Most elected officials are not up to the fight for good city management. Many probably have never had to fire an underperformer, don't know how to exact discipline, etc.
Performance reviews are meaningless unless goals have been set down prior. How can you gauge performance otherwise? What do you gauge it against if not goals?
Given the problems Lafayette faces, such goals should require the city administrator to stretch his abilities. I can only imagine the discussion on council about goal setting.
Also given the problems facing Lafayette, Council can't fix it alone. Nor, can the city administrator. Both need to be on the same page, and not at odds with each other. In this light, the new council should set down goals for themselves and tie those in with goals for the city administrator.
Nice theory. Good luck getting elected officials, who come to council with varying personal agendas, to agree on a direction, much less goals.
D-B,
There is no similarity between a business and government. That said the city council has oversight responsibility and can hire/fire the city administrator. A BOD can do the same to its CEO.
That being said, I am the only council member who has a copy of the contract and even knows one exists. This city council thinks the council goals are the city administrator's goals, which they aren't.
Goal setting and performance appraisals are a neat idea. You would have to explain to lay people what they are and how to measure them. Plausible denial is the rule of the day.
Ironically a lot of BODs function the same way except the CEO has a contract with performance clauses that involve raises in comp, perks, bonuses, and options. So the CEO pushes for the appraisals because of that.
Councilor Bensman, I have better things to do then spend a lot of time in your 'private chatroom' countering your spins and half truths. But don't infer things I have never said. I have never argued that more grocery stores increase the total grocery sales in Lafayette. I was simply pointing out that despite your dire predictions, every time a new grocery store opened in the past that total sales tax grocery proceeds increased, vs. stayed constant. Do I believe we need more grocery stores at this point? Absolutely not. I do believe we continue to draw more folks to Lafayette who had not shopped here before due to our diversity of offerings. As to your statement if "Monica, Andresky, and Beckham were around today, we would be considering a new city administrator" I know your lying, because one of them has told me they told you they disagreed with your position on this. I haven't checked with the other two yet but maybe you might want to do that and get verification.....
Don't know about any other participants, but I'm just a little offended Frank thinks of this as Kerry's "private chatroom".
Most, if not all, of the participants on this blog have taken Kerry to task on several issues or comments. This is very far from being a "Bensman chatroom".
This blog, and local voters, would be better served if more elected officials participated on a regular basis. Would be more constructive than just jumping in now and again to correct or refute comments.
If a local politician chooses not to participate, they have no one but themselves to blame if this becomes a platform for others.
Perhaps Dan would like to change the name of his blog to "Kerry's Private Chatroom." But I think Alex may hold the lead on participation, though I haven't counted. It could be a toss up.
And why Councillor Phillips decided to display his dark nature is somewhat distressing. Especially since it runs counter to the council policy he so heartily endorsed. If you fellow bloggers want me to respond to his latest comments, let me know and I will do so. I am not much into name calling though obviously sometimes my frustrations and disappointment show through.
The ironic thing is I voted for Councillor Phillips for Mayor two years ago. And I believe if the 3 former councilmembers I mentioned had decided to stay the course, he would be our mayor now.
If someone accused me of mendacity I would be at his door with three notarized statements demanding an apology. Instead you get mis-direction and a change of attitude.
Glad we've got that all cleared up, that a City Council is not like a corporate board of directors. There is a different accountability scheme, some enforceable fiduciary duties, to which a corporate director can be held. Besides recall, elected public officers are accountable in with their job only to the extent that they lose their effectiveness by being off-target, out of touch, and uninterested in performing their job well.
While I can think of some specific instances, and maybe even some general philosophies, where I would ask for Lafayette's City Administrator to perform differently, almost none of this is about decisions that were openly, and with appropriate gravity, made by the City Council.
One of the underlying assumptions here seems to be that risks were not diligently researched and not accurately conveyed to the Council in taking the steps that have put the City in the position it is in today with respect to economic development, funding needed improvements, etc. If that is true, by all means, the public should commend deeply probing into administrative acts and omissions that set this in motion.
My concern continues to be that we acknowledge the responsibility of the Council when important decisions are made. The Council was complicit when the City Administrator position and certain barriers between the Council and the administration were formalized by 2005 Charter Amendment, in Question 2E. In fact, that action, coupled with the contract the Council formalized with the City Administrator a few years ago, make me wonder if - no matter how bold, eloquent, or tenacious someone on the council wants to be about it - the question asked by the Lafayette News really is a viable issue, other than to see how bold, eloquent, or tenacious a candidate might be.
In many ways, the City Council's hands are tied, whether you view the current City Administrator as good, bad, or neutral. And that fact has the City Council written all over it. I find it very, very ironic that this topic has only come to light now, in the context of judging history.
Meanwhile, the Council continues to make important decisions on economic development, development agreements, and overall goals for the City.
I'll need some help with 2E in that the city has always functioned that way and supposedly this was housekeeping language which changed nothing.
As for the over sight issue, this was a major focus four years. It was reflected in the council goals. From that we actual get a fiscal impact statement on a staff proposal (i.e. what does it cost?, it took 3 years to start getting that, we have budget workshops (when I was elected, the previous council had not reviewed the 2003 budget and just said they'd approve it) and we actually did two performance appraisals. We focused on the Rec Center budget, the golf course problem, and other stuff. We also now get reports on the city EDA performance (that took 3 years).
However, what always is on the table is do we get the right information, is it correct, and can it be understood by lay people like me. Today, after reading the staff report on the fiscal impact of Target deleting its grocery store, I queried saying it was incomplete and please revise based on "blah, blah, blah". That was done. Why is it important? Because it affects the revenue forecast for the next 10 years that the repaving bond repayment scheme is based on as well as simply should we know?
I recall as a civilian going before the council to ask questions. The then Finance Director would report back including this is the amount of staff time used to answer the question. Then at least one council member would criticize the public for burdening the staff.
That doesn't happen any more. And the staff is getting better at doing a more complete job of analysis and projections, two are exceptional at it now. And they are happy that they do it.
Post a Comment