Four City Council letters in latest San Tan Sun

The May 5th, 2006 edition of the San Tan Sun is now out (24mb .pdf file) and it's definitely worth checking out. Lots in there worth seeing, but most immediate for this blog's purpose is the significant focus given to discussing the Chandler City Council:

1. On page 1 and 6, an article on the Recall effort.

2. Also on page 1, 8 and 9, an article featuring Part 2 (of 2) of the Q&A with the three candidates to fill two slots in the upcoming May 16th Council runoff race. I did a play-by-play ranking of the candidates based on Part 1 (here) and will continue the ranking with Part 2 in another post, soon.

3. On Page 25, the Community Commentary (i.e., "Letters to the Editor" section) commences. Among those letters are four by members of the council: Donna Wallace, Matt Orlando, Martin Sepulveda and Mayor Dunn, all explaining their views on the City Manager Pentz review. Several other citizens weigh in on the Pentz affair, the recall and the candidacy of one or more of the candidates in the upcoming Council runoff election, if you're interested. [Among these other letters are one by candidate Becky Jackson refuting the suggestion of a conflict of interest due to her Presidency of the Chamber of Commerce, a letter from Councilman Caccamo endorsing candidate Weninger and one from Mayor Dunn endorsing candidate Donovan].

Regarding the Council members' letters on the Pentz review, something jumped out at me. Namely, there is a distinct difference in the methodology of the letters. It seems that the first three explain why they found Pentz less than stellar, offering specific details to back up their concerns. One can agree with the significance of the details or not, but they seem fairly concrete. Pentz was slow in responding (and this was an issue raised in an earlier review), he received an average or lower rating from most of the Council members, was negligent in dealing with a key issue that cost the city money and possibly health risks, yelled at citizens, threatened a police officer with political retaliation, etc.

On the other hand, Mayor Dunn's letter seems to defend Pentz by suggestion, innuendo and non sequitur. Pentz is a great City Manager, basically, because Chandler has been growing so fast. Pentz may have been months in responding to some of Orlando's concerns, but that's not a problem because Pentz gets a lot of emails (Dunn doesn't really know how many, though). Pentz probably didn't threaten Officer Babeu or yell at citizens because he's not that kind of guy around Dunn and his friends. And if there were any "heated" discussions with other Council members, it's probably just because Pentz was simply being direct and the Council members were just thin-skinned (though Dunn really has no idea, since he wasn't a party to those events). It's a great job at trying to defend Mark Pentz, but it comes off more like a hagiography of Dunn's associate and a hatchet job on his political opponents.

As my readers know, I've done (and continue to do) an extraordinary amount of research and diligence to better understanding this issue. And still my own sense of this is extremely conflicted. I confess, though, I have smelled a rat for some time. And while I may not be happy with the way it has all been handled by the rest of the Council, in my quiet moments of searching my heart, mind and gut, I have to say that it seems that both Mayor Dunn and Mark Pentz share some significant blame here. And what's more, my experience in mediating these kinds of entangled political and interpersonal conflicts is that it is very unlikely that the absolute truth of "who is at fault" will ever be known by the public, and indeed, it may not even be fully known by the insiders themselves!

And given that, I cannot bring myself to support a radical, disruptive, expensive step of recalling two of our Council members.

Well, in the spirit of approaching this issue with integrity and allowing you to make up your own mind, please download the San Tan Sun and read the letters. For the sake of those folks who may not have broadband and can't download the 24 mb .pdf file, I'm also copying the council's letters here.

(Because these letters are from our elected officials, I believe they are public domain and thus reproducible without copyright considerations. I welcome anyone with contradictory legal expertise to disabuse me of this notion, however, and I will happily remove them.)

A. Donna Wallace

Lack of oversight by Pentz
by Donna Wallace, Chandler City Council

Last year’s review of city manager Mark Pentz took an unusually amount of time to complete: 3 Executive Sessions and 6 weeks before we were ready to renew his contract. There were problems.

The problems that seemed to surface in the latest round of public discussion are not new, just newer examples. In my capacity as one of his seven supervisors, I meet with the City Manager every two weeks and I review him continually. Let me share just a few of the more significant performance concerns I have with our City Manager.

In Sept. 2005, the City of Chandler received 3 Notice of Violations (NOV) from Maricopa County, all regarding our landfill. At the Council Study Session on Nov. 14, 2005 staff brought forward 2 items: one was to purchase a larger flare (to burn off methane gas) for the landfill at the cost of $443,095 (this item was not put out to bid), the second was to abandon the gas-to- energy system at our landfill. This system uses generators to turn methane gas to energy. It was purchased about 6 years ago at a cost of $250,000 to $300,000 to the taxpayers. I requested these two items be pulled from the agenda and taken to the Council sub-committee for further study. This was done in late November.

After constant monitoring by me and others on the council to the city manager and staff about the importance of this issue, I learned that the gas-to-energy automated regulating system had not been operating consistently for over a year. As a result, gases in the landfill had been building for over a year with little release. This could cause a health problem because gas can migrate into our water system, or from the site. The justification from staff for needing a larger flare was to release more gas faster to keep the gas from migrating from the site or getting into our ground water because of the buildup. This seemed reasonable until I started to investigate this issue further.

I found that the new flare was not put out to bid ... (which) concerned me. We should always try to get the best value for our taxpayers.

In addition, I learned we paid the contractor who installed the gas-to-energy system the full payment for his work, yet there was much work to be completed on the contract!

On Feb. 9, 2006 staff brought forward the purchase of the bigger flare at the cost of $441,534 after getting 2 more bids. Staff told the Council that we were in a crisis situation where it was feared the gas could start to migrate from the site or get into the ground water. The City Council was put in a position of no choice but to spend $441,534 for a larger flare.

Because of the NOV’s, Maricopa County Inspectors came to our landfill and tested the flare, which passed “with flying colors.” After some maintenance and a modification to the permit, the generators were turned back on. Based on our Municipal Utilities Director, the generators are working great and being monitored manually.”

In summary, I believe that had our flare and generators been maintained properly, and not turned off consistently for over a year, we would not have needed to purchase a larger flare at a cost of $441,534 to our taxpayers as well as the fines for the NOV’s. I believe this was a waste of taxpayer money. We could have purchased many police vests, breathing apparatus for our firefighters and many other needed items in other departments.

To abandon a system that cost our taxpayers close to $300,000 just 6 years ago because it was not maintained and used consistently is not acceptable to me. My job is to protect the taxpayer’s investment in their city.

This is just one example of the lack of oversight and accountability that our former City Manager exercised throughout the city. I believe Chandler deserves a “CEO” who is fully engaged in the business of Chandler and won’t wait until we are in a crisis before engaging on our behalf. This was not an easy decision and was not taken lightly.

B. Matt Orlando

Pentz not responsive
by Matt Orlando, Chandler City Council

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.

C. Martin Sepulveda

City deserves better
by Martin Sepulveda, Chandler City Council

Now that the heated exchanges and finger pointing over the Chandler city manager's contract have subsided, we need to look at what transpired and why. First, it's important to understand the basic relationship between the manager and the City Council.

The manager is one of four "at will" employees who report directly to the Mayor and Council. The Council has sole responsibility for the employment of the city manager.

Prior to the April 10 Council meeting, much was written by community columnists, editorial boards and newspaper letter writers regarding the city manager's fate. Some Council members talked to the press. Others did not.

I believed it wasn't appropriate to discuss specific details of the performance review prior to the meeting. I did, however, stand by my previous assessment of his performance.

The initial review of the city manager took a month-and-a-half. One of the questions Council collectively asked was how we would quantify performance.

A consultant was hired, criteria were developed and Council agreed on seven evaluation categories.

While I was in Iraq for the discussion phase, I took part in the written portion of the performance evaluation. What immediately got my attention was the summary of all evaluations. In the first two categories, Council Relationship and Professional Competencies, six of seven Council members rated the city manager as "satisfactory" or below.

In four of the remaining five categories, five of seven Council members rated the city manager as "satisfactory" or below.

Six of seven, and five of seven, don't indicate a divided Council. They indicate that the city manager is an average performer.

The response to this exercise was another survey. Twenty-two city employees were selected to participate. I don't know how they were chosen. Eighteen responded. They gave the city manager high marks. This survey was not part of the original scope of work. That aside, I question the value of a survey of 18 people out of a 1,600-person workforce.

Throughout the evaluation process, we heard feedback indicating the city manager didn't communicate well, responded slowly and sometimes didn't respond at all. Citizens complained to Council members that the manager had yelled at them.

The President of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association (CLEA) reported he was threatened by the city manager during an argument. The city manager disputed that during his evaluation, challenging the testimony of a sworn Police Officer and stating he never meant to threaten the officer or CLEA.

The city manager said he contacted the Chief of Police immediately about the exchange. But he never attempted to clear up this major misunderstanding with an employee who acts on behalf of 240 police officers. Instead, the manager tried to discredit his employee by claiming the officer wasn't involved in the meet and confer process. This proved to be untrue.

Finally, I asked the city manager to comment on his overall evaluation, which hovered just below "satisfactory." His response was that "satisfactory" was okay. He was doing his job. When one of the manager's objectives is to create a "High Performance Organization," I don't find "average" or "satisfactory" acceptable for Chandler. I've seen Chandler evolve from a farming community in the early 60's to what it is today. This didn't happen by accident. Chandler's operating budget is almost $1 billion. We have more than 1,600 employees. In salary and benefits, we pay the city manager more than $200,000 annually to oversee daily operations.

I don't believe Chandler can retain its character as a great community by settling for "satisfactory" or "average." Our citizens deserve better than that.

D. Mayor Boyd Dunn

Mayor disappointed in council
by Mayor Boyd Dunn

Much has been written following the public review and forced resignation of
Chandler’s City Manager, Mark Pentz.

Judging from the outcry from the community – in the form of emails, letters to the editor, calls to the City and residents stopping me to express opinions – I believe people understand the reasons Mark chose to separate from the City have nothing to do with his performance.

Two of his critics have now written justifications for their actions. Their accusations have already damaged Mark’s excellent professional reputation enough so I feel compelled to respond on his behalf.

Council members Matt Orlando and Donna Wallace have both written that their concerns with Mark have been ongoing. Mark’s last evaluation occurred in executive session, so I am limited in what I can reveal. Suffice it to say there were problems, but not with Mark. Frankly, I believe these problems stemmed from the challenges inherent in having seven different “bosses” with seven different agendas and expectations, the fractious nature of this particular Council and the politics of an upcoming election season.

To avoid these same problems this year, a consultant was hired to develop performance goals we could use to objectively assess Mark’s performance. This process was supposed to eliminate the personal faultfinding and ensure we were evaluating our employee fairly.

Now, ignoring whether Mark has met these agreed-upon objectives, Ms. Wallace cites an issue with our gas-to-energy program at the landfill – one of the dozens and dozens of projects that City staff is working on –– as her reason for supporting his resignation. This is an important and innovative project. As is often the case with new undertakings, issues with its implementation must be resolved. But I would not view this circumstance as unusual nor as a legitimate reason to terminate an excellent city manager.

Mr. Orlando alleges Mark had “heated exchanges” with a councilmember and residents. Knowing Mark’s demeanor, I question how “heated” these conversations really were and I am very confident they were never unprofessional.

If Mark was firm with a council member in conveying his professional opinion, it may be because he thought it was his job to do so. Unfortunately, it seems some members of this Council take it personally if they receive professional advice that is contrary to their own preconceived ideas. But regardless of his personal opinion, Mark has never failed to carry out any policy that has been approved by a majority of this Council.

Mr. Orlando also claims that Mark threatened a police union’s representative. I do know Mark had a conversation with this representative about a press conference the union held prior to the primary election. My understanding is that Mark raised concerns about erroneous information provided to the public on behalf of the union.

These inaccuracies even had to be corrected by our police chief in a subsequent press release. Mark also told me he talked about the positive cooperation we have had in our new formalized bargaining processes and how our continued success relied on maintaining trust between labor and management. I would hope he would also express a bit of disappointment in being surprised by the charges made by the union. Mr. Orlando says his main concern is the time it took Mark to respond to his questions. I don’t know all of the requests Mr. Orlando made, but I know he wasn’t the only one making them. Imagine having seven elected officials bringing forward multiple issues and inquiries at once. Not all of them can possibly be handled at the same time. Some issues will take longer than others to answer. However, looking at how the City has prospered since Mark became the manager leads me to believe the manner in which he prioritized and handled these tasks was appropriate.

One of the main reasons Mark was recruited to come to Chandler was because of his past success in economic development. There have been billions of dollars in investments and thousands of jobs created since Mark came to this community. Our downtown is undergoing significant redevelopment. As neighboring cities struggle financially, we have remained fiscally strong. Critical transportation projects have been completed or accelerated under his management. Our public safety forces steadily grow. Service levels continue to improve and our citizen satisfaction ratings are as high as they have ever been.

I have not been disappointed in Mark’s performance. However, I cannot say the same for the performance of some of members of this Council.