Pilara's Recall will go forward.
Ray Pilara's Recall of Councilmen Sepulveda and Orlando will be moving forward, according to information posted on Pilara's site today*:
Pilara obviously disagrees. However, he makes a couple of statements in this post that really have to be answered. The fact that the cost of replacing the City Manager will be $300k does not, in any way, excuse the $50k costs associated with a recall.
1. First, Ray is basing his "net savings to the taxpayer" of $250k on "rumored" statements that Pentz might stay if Sepulveda and Orlando are let go. Rumors? Ray is basically proposing to gamble $50k of our money on a 5:1 payoff, based on a rumor? And, if the recall fails, then the "payoff" is definitely zero. All other things aside, that seems a pretty irresponsible use of city funds, Ray. It reminds me of Schwartzenegger's special elections that cost California millions, and absolutely nothing to show for it except a big fat bill and a massive orchestration of tensions among the electorate.
2. Second, Ray doesn't really know, from an insider's perspective, whether Pentz might not have needed to be let go. He's assuming that his sense of Pentz's fitness for the job makes getting rid of him a gross error. But many of the people who weighed in on Pentz's behalf don't interact with him in the same way as the Council does. And just because Caccamo, Dunn and Huggins may have had good working relations with Pentz doesn't mean that Pentz wasn't seriously compromised in his relationships with others on the Council or other staffers. The upshot of it is that Pilara is assuming that Sepulveda and Orlando and the others on the Council had ulterior motives for getting rid of Pentz.
But what if Pilara is wrong? What if Pentz was a very difficult person to get along with for a certain group of Council members and staffers who had to work closely with him? What if those issues were never encountered by the business leaders who spoke on his behalf or by Dunn and his other supporters? What if, indeed, Sepulveda and Orlando and the others had quite legitimate reasons for the charges and concerns they raised? Then they surely shouldn't be recalled, Pentz shouldn't be asked to stay and the $300k cost to get rid of him could well be a valid expense.
3. Third, one has to question Pilara's assertion of only a $50k cost to the city from this recall. One first wonders where he got this estimate and whether his source has a vested interest in low-balling it. But even if it's accurate as the base cost of a recall ballot, the longer-term expense could be significantly more than that. If one were to factor in the lost productivity and momentum incurred by having two experienced Council members let go and replaced with two new members, one could imagine some degree of loss-of-efficiency or loss-of-experience cost to the city's bottom line.
If having two greenhorn Council members means the Council is working just a little bit slower, with just a little bit less expertise and less honed experience, it is conceivable that this could have a financial impact on our municipality. How big that would be is impossible to say. But considering that our city budget is three-quarters of a billion dollars, even a minuscule impact could result in a significant cost.
In summary, I think Pilara's effort is a misguided attempt to adjust the composition of the Council for reasons I don't think rise to the level of warranting a recall. Added to the fact that Ray has also said that he has friends with deep pockets who will bankroll this recall effort, there is my concern, too, that some wealthy, powerful people may possibly be using Pilara's anger to adjust the composition of the Council in contravention of Sepulveda's and Orlando's terms of office.
Sepulveda and Orlando will be up for re-election soon. If the voters want them out then, so be it. But I guess I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to not undermining the elections process. In this case, I just don't think a special recall is the right way to deal with the kind of frustrations that have arisen from the Pentz affair.
*(Hat tip to Jake for the heads-up on this.)
As of today, April 17, based on the number of emails and phone calls received, the recall effort is going to proceed.As I've mentioned before, I'm not in favor of this recall. I don't believe what Sepulveda and Orlando have done rise to a recallable offense, I believe Mayor Dunn bears some responsibility for poor leadership in this and it's hard to say (as a spectator) whether Pentz might not have in fact needed to be let go.
Two petitions for recall will be filed within the next 2 weeks, so the deadline of the November general election can be met. One petition for Matt Orlando, and one for Martin Sepulveda.
We are looking at June 1 as our deadline to submit the required petition signatures, again, to make the November election date.
It is important to note we are not the folks that will make this recall effort a success; it is you the voters that will make that determination. We will make the petitions available for signatures; the City of Chandler voters will make the final decision.
As a side comment: I have been told the recall election will cost the taxpayers around $50,000.00 (that is a lot of money); but the cost to the taxpayers, as it stands now, for the firing of the City Manager is $300,000.00! (It has been rumored that the City Manager will stay if Orlando and Sepulveda are recalled.) Using these numbers, the savings to the taxpayers is roughly $250,000.00. The $300,000.00 does not include the costs that will be incurred for finding and hiring a new City Manager.
Pilara obviously disagrees. However, he makes a couple of statements in this post that really have to be answered. The fact that the cost of replacing the City Manager will be $300k does not, in any way, excuse the $50k costs associated with a recall.
1. First, Ray is basing his "net savings to the taxpayer" of $250k on "rumored" statements that Pentz might stay if Sepulveda and Orlando are let go. Rumors? Ray is basically proposing to gamble $50k of our money on a 5:1 payoff, based on a rumor? And, if the recall fails, then the "payoff" is definitely zero. All other things aside, that seems a pretty irresponsible use of city funds, Ray. It reminds me of Schwartzenegger's special elections that cost California millions, and absolutely nothing to show for it except a big fat bill and a massive orchestration of tensions among the electorate.
2. Second, Ray doesn't really know, from an insider's perspective, whether Pentz might not have needed to be let go. He's assuming that his sense of Pentz's fitness for the job makes getting rid of him a gross error. But many of the people who weighed in on Pentz's behalf don't interact with him in the same way as the Council does. And just because Caccamo, Dunn and Huggins may have had good working relations with Pentz doesn't mean that Pentz wasn't seriously compromised in his relationships with others on the Council or other staffers. The upshot of it is that Pilara is assuming that Sepulveda and Orlando and the others on the Council had ulterior motives for getting rid of Pentz.
But what if Pilara is wrong? What if Pentz was a very difficult person to get along with for a certain group of Council members and staffers who had to work closely with him? What if those issues were never encountered by the business leaders who spoke on his behalf or by Dunn and his other supporters? What if, indeed, Sepulveda and Orlando and the others had quite legitimate reasons for the charges and concerns they raised? Then they surely shouldn't be recalled, Pentz shouldn't be asked to stay and the $300k cost to get rid of him could well be a valid expense.
3. Third, one has to question Pilara's assertion of only a $50k cost to the city from this recall. One first wonders where he got this estimate and whether his source has a vested interest in low-balling it. But even if it's accurate as the base cost of a recall ballot, the longer-term expense could be significantly more than that. If one were to factor in the lost productivity and momentum incurred by having two experienced Council members let go and replaced with two new members, one could imagine some degree of loss-of-efficiency or loss-of-experience cost to the city's bottom line.
If having two greenhorn Council members means the Council is working just a little bit slower, with just a little bit less expertise and less honed experience, it is conceivable that this could have a financial impact on our municipality. How big that would be is impossible to say. But considering that our city budget is three-quarters of a billion dollars, even a minuscule impact could result in a significant cost.
In summary, I think Pilara's effort is a misguided attempt to adjust the composition of the Council for reasons I don't think rise to the level of warranting a recall. Added to the fact that Ray has also said that he has friends with deep pockets who will bankroll this recall effort, there is my concern, too, that some wealthy, powerful people may possibly be using Pilara's anger to adjust the composition of the Council in contravention of Sepulveda's and Orlando's terms of office.
Sepulveda and Orlando will be up for re-election soon. If the voters want them out then, so be it. But I guess I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to not undermining the elections process. In this case, I just don't think a special recall is the right way to deal with the kind of frustrations that have arisen from the Pentz affair.
*(Hat tip to Jake for the heads-up on this.)
posted by Geo at 1:37 PM
2 Comments:
I like the new site, and I agree that this (the recall) is probably a bad idea on principle. I do think you're giving too much weight to the demeanor aspects of this decision by the gang of four. It seems much more like a railroading than an actual discrepancy in how he gets along with people, and regardless of the reason, the way it was handled reflects extremely poorly on our elected officials.
Thank you both for dropping by and thanks for your comments!
I have to confess a degree of uncertainty here.
For my own part, I've seen how personality differences (which is what this appears to be) can be a cancer on a team trying to work together. Especially when there is thinly veiled political partisanship involved. So I can well imagine that there may have been some really toxic interactions between Pentz and others of which we are unaware and which might be difficult to codify in a review, except in the ways in which his detractors did so. I'm not saying that's the case - only that, from my experience, I've seen it happen.
Then I also look at the Mayor's responsibility, here. It takes good leadership to be able to address personality conflicts constructively and proactively so that they don't fester and erupt in this kind of behavior. A disengaged, passive or partisan leader will allow such divisions to grow (or even unknowingly add fuel to the fire) without employing the kind of diplomacy, collaboration and consensus-building that is the hallmark of good team leadership. It doesn't appear that this was done effectively, which is one reason I have to fault Mayor Dunn, in part, for this fiasco.
But regardless of whatever faults Pentz or Dunn may have brought to the table, (and I have to reserve stronger judgment on that lacking better insight into the situation) I agree with you both that this was a totally unprofessional way to handle this by Sepulveda and others and it reflects very badly on them.
As I say, I just tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to recalls, because they fundamentally destabilize the elections process and thus usually do more harm in the long run than good. Recalls can be used inconsistently, often for partisan purposes. They cause partisan rifts and tensions to deepen, more taxpayers' funds to be wasted, attention to be diverted from more constructive things, folks to lose faith in the elections process which broadens voter apathy, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home