Councilman Orlando responds to Precinct 134 on Pentz, Recall

In what I must say is a thorough-going and in-depth reply, Councilman Matt Orlando has kindly responded today to a series of rather pointed questions I posed to him by email. This "email interview", which is becoming a tradition on Precinct 134, focuses on the City Council's actions in the recent separation of City Manager Mark Pentz and the ensuing Recall effort initiated by Ray Pilara.

Bluntly put, I believe anyone who reads this interview with an open mind will find it difficult to support the Recall without serious doubts in their mind.

I'll copy our email exchange without edit and let the comments speak for themselves. Please note that Councilman Orlando responded by copying my letter and then placing his answers beneath each of my questions in his reply. I'll place my specific questions in italics to help keep them separated from his responses. His letter:

George,

It was gracious of you to allow me the opportunity to express my opinions. After you read this, we can talk and I can "fill in" any additional questions you might have.

Matt

[NB: My letter is then copied below his signature. -Geo]

From: George Gregg
To: [Councilman Orlando]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: possibly speaking

Dear Matt,

As I mentioned in my earlier email today, I am very grateful for your kind willingness to interact with me on these issues.

In preparation for our phone call, I wrote the key half-dozen questions/thoughts I'd like to address with you in our call, as well as hear any comments you'd like to make. In the interest of making this as constructive a process as possible, I thought I'd communicate those questions/thoughts with you beforehand, so you aren't blind-sided by anything I'd be asking. You may have other goals for our phone call, though, and I'm very happy to respect that.

Of course, feel free to respond to any or all of these thoughts in writing, as well, if you wish. I'll be happy to publicly post whatever comments you wish to share. Otherwise, I'll look forward to our phone call.

Questions/thoughts follow.

Very respectfully yours,
George Gregg

Suggested questions/thoughts for our upcoming phone conversation:

1. As I've said on my blog, it seems like there may have been friction on the Council developing well before the Pentz affair came to a head. Going back, I'd first like to ask you about that. From your perspective, has there been any evidence of partisanship or factionalizing or possible friction before the Pentz review became an issue? What about particularly between Mayor Dunn and Councilman Sepulveda? Between Councilman Sepulveda and City Manager Pentz?

I can't answer for Sepulveda, Pentz, or Mayor Dunn; I can only answer for myself. In my ten years as a councilmember, I conducted over 40 personnel reviews for the four individuals who work for the council (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Magistrate) and I can't remember any review going more than one evening session. However, during my first review with Mr. Pentz it took me and the rest of the council three evenings to reach a consensus. Some council members had issues with Mr. Pentz's performance; so did I. However, for the first six months I was on the council I gave the city manager the benefit of any doubts I had, as well as give him time to improve his performance. Also, I never had any friction with Mr. Pentz. I liked him as an individual, supported him on all of his personnel moves, and on most of the issues he recommended to the Council. As I stated publicly, my major concern was his lack of follow-through on requests from Council members and citizens and, to a lesser extent, his lack of communication of Council issues to his staff.

Prior to Martin and me returning to office in June 2004, the city council had friction with the previous city manager, Donna Dreska. Ms Dreska was the assistant city manager and was appointed city manager by the Council when Lloyd Harrell retired. I learned from news accounts, memos, and discussions with past and present council members that Ms. Dreska was given a separation package to leave her post. That package cost the city $145,000. The council, as in the case with Mr. Pentz, was split on whether to retain or let Ms. Dreska go. Interestingly, the three Council members who today wanted to keep Mr. Pentz were the ones who wanted Ms. Dreska to leave. Ms. Dreska chose to depart quietly and professionally. There was no hullabaloo in the press over Ms. Dreska's leaving.


2. I've noted also there was a serious escalation in tensions on the Pentz performance review before it was held, with Pentz himself calling for a public review and Mayor Dunn calling for it to be publicized. Pentz also brought his attorney, which I gather is uncommon in such reviews. And there was evidently significant feedback from various business people in praise of Pentz, which may or may not have been solicited. In your opinion, what led to this escalation beforehand? Had there been comments made to Pentz that suggested to him that this review would be very unfavorable? Is there any indication that members of the Council contributed to this escalation of conflict and, if so, how?

Again, I can't answer for other council members. I can say there were news accounts that Mr. Sepulveda was upset with the city manager for not continuing his council pay while he served in Iraq. However, a lot of the hubbub over continuing Mr. Sepulveda's pay is fabrication. Council member Sepulveda didn't know his pay was suspended until after it became an issue. Later Mr. Sepulveda told me in an email from Iraqi that he was disappointed Mr. Pentz used his staff to notify his wife about the discontinuing of the pay. The timeline I pieced together suggests Mr. Pentz and/or staff could have contacted Council member Sepulveda before he left country or they could have sent an email or letter to Mr. Sepulveda and avoided unnecessarily upsetting his family. As a member of the military myself, the last thing a service member wants to hear (particularly in a war zone) is that your family is unduly being upset. Believe me, Council member Sepulveda doesn't need the money and he didn't join the military or seek public office for the pay.

I don't know who would have told Mr. Pentz about any pending unfavorable reviews. No one I asked talked to him because they were respecting the city manager's right to privacy and would have only talked to him in executive session (behind close doors). Let me add here that about two weeks before the city manager's review, Mr. Pentz called me and asked me directly if I was in support of retaining him. I told him it was not appropriate for me to comment on his review outside a closed door format. In addition, I told him I hadn't made up my mind and would do so after he had his review.

Shortly afterward, I starting hearing from reliable sources (an attorney that represented a business that was contacted and members of the Chamber of Commerce) that a lobbyist group was calling many of the Chandler businesses and asking them to write letters of support of Mr. Pentz. In addition, a media blitz was started by certain Council members and supporters for a particular council candidate. I have no problem with individuals expressing their opinion. However, I along with some of the council members who were targets of the media blitz declined to respond in turn because we remained under the impression the review with the city manager would be in private, and I for one was obligated (as a courtesy) to the city manager to say nothing to the press. Of course things started to "snow ball" before I had time to get "my side" of the issue to the public.


3. Ray Pilara, the coordinator of the recall campaign, has responded to me that he feels he has yet to hear any concise, coherent reasons why City Manager Pentz should be let go. Could you please take a moment and clarify the specific reasons that you feel Pentz did not merit continuing in his role? Or clarify your position on this, otherwise?


First, The Chandler's City Charter clearly outlines that the city manager reports to the Council. The city manager can be released from his contract without cause. These contractual agreements are standard throughout the United States and any city manager knows the rewards and risks associated with these agreements.

Second, I summarized my reasons in the "My Turn" column:

On Monday evening, the Mayor and Council agreed by a 5-2 vote to accept a separation agreement with the City Manager. As you know, the City Manager works directly for the Mayor and Council. The events that culminated in the public review were unfortunate. In the end, both the City Council and the City Manager agreed the separation agreement was in the best interests of both parties.

First and foremost, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that during the public hearing, many positive attributes were noted about our City Manager. I, too, joined in praise of his accomplishments.

However, there were several concerns expressed about his professionalism and performance from our Council and community. Most will agree, the examples raised about his professional conduct wouldn't be tolerated in the private work place and definitely shouldn't be tolerated in government, including:

* Several "heated exchanges" with a Councilmember.

* Several instances of the City Manager yelling at citizens.

* The president of Chandler‚s „rank and file‰ police officers‚ organization stated that the City Manager threatened to withhold the benefits of a salary survey if he did not tone down his public comments about the safety of his police officers.

However, my main concern with the City Manager was the inordinate amount of time it took him to respond back to me on questions that I posed. Many of the questions were posed to the City Manager because citizens like you asked me for information or answers to questions. This was extremely disturbing to me because you (like your boss, employer or customer) deserve timely answers to your concerns. In many cases, I had to ask repeatedly for answers to your questions and concerns and they weren‚t addressed for weeks, or sometimes months.

This was an issue of mine during last year‚s review of the City Manager. He recognized the need to do better and agreed to work on improving his responsiveness. Unfortunately, a year later, there was little improvement.

As a 23-year-resident of this community, I want to assure you I didn't take this issue lightly. I didn't want to see more divisiveness in our community. I did my best without malice to try and give the City Manager the benefit of the doubt and listen to all sides on this issue.

I understand the importance of the city manager‚s position to effective city operations. I and the rest of the Council will certainly work hard to find a quality candidate who will partner with us and continue to move our community forward.

4. I appreciate that Pentz' separation from the role as a City Manager is not the same as being fired. All five Council members present voted in favor of that separation agreement (two having left the executive session in protest before the vote). Mayor Dunn has expressed his reason for voting in favor as having been motivated out of seeking fairness for Pentz. Could you please share your reasons and insights on why you voted for that separation agreement?

Please note that Mr. Pentz gave his proposal for separation prior to our executive session and the public hearing. The Council chose not to read the separation agreement until after the public hearing. I voted for the separation agreement rather than be punitive and just terminate the city manager. The city manager would have received (by the original contractual agreement) less compensation if he was terminated than under the terms outlined in the separation agreement.

5. One of the implications of the recall effort is that it may be more constructive to recall Council members who make an unpopular decision than to have them continue in office carrying forward on the initiatives in other areas that they feel strongly about. I wonder if you could please share with me how you see the upcoming two and a half years of your tenure on the Council and what you would be focusing on, specifically, up to the end of your term in 2008.

As I have done for ten years on the Council, I will work to improve Chandler‚s established neighborhoods ˆ to ensure they are safe and work to ensure they don‚t deteriorate. I will work with other Council members on devising and implementing a solid build-out strategy for the city. I will continue to be fiscally prudent while supporting a level of services to our citizens that is consistent with that responsibility. I will work to improve our park and recreation systems and ensure the citizens of Chandler receive prompt answers and actions to their requests.

6. Do you have any other comments about anything we've discussed or other topics you'd like to share with me or the readers of the "Precinct 134" blog?

A recall is serious and should be used as a tool for malfeasance, crimes, etc and as a last resort for a pattern of inappropriate behavior or disregard for the general public opinion. Over the last three years, there have been many council decisions ( 7 story building, Wal-Mart in neighborhoods, auto mall near the college, transfer station) that have upset neighborhoods and citizens. The citizens worked with the council to resolve the disputes and not threaten a recall. I ask Chandler residents to look at my service to this community (23 years) and nation (Colonel in the Arizona National Guard - 28 years) as a whole, and not one ugly incident that I had little control over the hype.

Thank you, again, Councilman Orlando, for your time and consideration in responding to my questions. Please also feel free to expand or clarify any statements in the comments section, too.