It’s as good as a time as any to discuss what the City Council should be looking for when they search for a new City Manager.
I think the first thing that is necessary is for that person to have a strong personality. While I know in the past we have had disastrous episodes when the City Manager had a strong personality — I am specifically thinking of Jim Flint who I understand was quite authoritative, but I only know from second hand accounts — I think that it’s important to find someone that can balance out the strong personalities on the City Council. The issue when the City Manager serves at the pleasure of the City Council is that if you have someone that doesn’t have quite enough confidence they could be less aggressive out of fear for their job. However, I don’t think there is any way to correct this dynamic short of requiring a super majority of votes (like four out of five rather than three out of 5) to remove a City Manager. So a strong personality is definitely a must.
Someone once mentioned that our current Council has varying experience and knowledge about huge development projects and dealing with something on the size and scope of Alameda Point. Knowing that the subject of Alameda Point will be looming large in the near and distant future, it’s incumbent that the next City Manager have familiarity with all aspects of this topic. While this may automatically eliminate the viability of such a candidate in some people’s minds — can you hear the cries of developer’s pockets now? — better to have someone who has been there, done that than doing on the job training.
Leadership skills are key too. Essentially this person will be the “boss” for all City staff, while I’ve never been a big proponent of a new head coming in and “cleaning house” I can think of a few departments — not heads, just in general — that could use a lesson in working collectively as a City for the benefit of the City and not just for their individual department. This person will, hopefully, be the one to work on negotiating new contracts with bargaining units and we need someone who will not back down because because of politics.
Some people would say we need to make sure the person is an Alamedan, others would say we need to find someone from outside of Alameda. Either way, someone is going to be unhappy with the City Manager choice, but — this goes back to yesterday’s post – when evaluating why there is unhappiness with the City Manager it needs to be understood what the complaint is. Personal slights or lack of access are not sufficient reasons why to change out chiefs and until we get some honesty from our Council about the “differences” between the Council and the exiting City Manager, we will always be left with a huge question mark and this will loom over any future appointment for City Manager.
Oh, and I forgot, Happy Square Root Day!
It is perfectly appropriate for job negotiations to take place in closed door, but there is a holding period before the minutes of closed door meetings are made public. I think the public needs to know what the specific differences are between the outgoing City Manager and Council, but where is the line drawn on that as far as divulging what occurred in the closed session?
Comment by Mark Irons — March 3, 2009 @ 8:19 am
I don’t know, but I think that what happened in the closed door session(s) will not be divulged, which is why the city issued a formal, generic press release.
Maybe information will be leaked, but how much more reliable that will be than the city’s own press release is anyone’s guess.
Probably eavesdropping on the next closed door session would be more reliable.
Comment by E T — March 3, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Rather than spending the next year focused on hiring a new manager and bickering over who that should be, I think that the council should get by with an interim city manager. The city is in crisis. The council needs to focus on the city’s financial condition, not on hiring someone who may or may not be better than the current interim manager.
(And would whoever is in charge of the city’s website please update it. Debra Kurita is still listed as the CM and Power & Telecom is still listed on the department directory.)
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 3, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
While we’re at it, who is responsible for the Christmas flags on Webster Street? It is now March.
They should be put in storage for at least a few months.
Thanks.
Comment by RM — March 3, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
This may not be relevant to this thread, but while we are at it I would like to see that the next City Manager dose not start out at another $50,000. a year over what we already paid the one we just fired. How about starting the new person out at a lower rate of pay and have them prove that they are worth the raise they may get. I am so tired of hearing that we just can’t find someone unless we give them the moon.
Also can we get back to just a City Manager and Asst. City Manager without all the Deputies involved. The council must realize that we are in some very trying times and should start living within our Cities means.
Comment by John Piziali — March 3, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
[...] Who should be Alameda’s next city manager? [...]
Pingback by Departed City Manager Leaves Big Mess in Alameda « Spot Us - “Community Funded Reporting” — April 29, 2009 @ 8:37 am
#6 – This is the worst piece of journalism I have ever seen! If this is an example of what Spot.Us. delivers as “community funded journalism”, I would say the media is well and truly dead!
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 29, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Jayne, aka comic book superhero?,
What do you find objectionable about post #6? Is it the message or the messenger?
I am surprised the city manager could quit mid contract and still be eligible for a 6 month severance package. Sounds crazy to me, more so because to our attny it is “standard”. Most of the article is the same budget material presented at the last CC mtg.
Comment by dk — April 29, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I am really surprised that the Daily Planet would put its name on that piece. I mean, first of all, it is old news to us, and second, it really is weak on facts and more of a tattle-rag piece than something that has dug deeply into the area.
If there was a point to it other that to be a smear, the point was not made. This is not hard hitting journalism.
I would dearly loved to have seen a real in depth article about this, as a follow up to what has already appeared in our papers, but even our papers did so much more in the way of reporting on this the Spot.Us article was a waste of space!
Spot.Us needs to go back to journalism school.
Comment by E T — April 30, 2009 @ 8:52 am
#8 Who you calling a comic book superhero?!
I thought you were a smart and nice person! Get over yourself!
Come on! That was a piece of crap! They musta cobbled that together from articles already written and thrown in a couple nasty sentences to make it sound sensational. That’s the Fox News style of reporting.
None of us as time for that @#%*!
Comment by Jayne Smythe — April 30, 2009 @ 8:58 am
David Cohn again from Spot.Us.
Ahh shucks everyone. I left a comment here that I hope explains my position on the thing: http://laurendo.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/spottyus/#comment-77552
It isn’t an excuse – but an explanation. Spot.Us actually had nothing to do with the journalism. We were a funding mechanism for the Berkeley Daily Planet.
I think the lesson for us is that we need to be more on top of who we partner with and the content that we produce. Because as I mention in the comment linked to above: I wasn’t happy with the piece either. I hope in the future we will produce better content.
Comment by Digidave — April 30, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
That reminds me: Who are the folks that you think we should partner with? Michele at The Island? Alameda Sun, Lauren from this blog?
Spot.Us goal is to enable folks to go longer and deeper into articles by helping them make a living while they spend more time on articles.
Again I realize that doesn’t come across in the Alameda story we published – but I assure you that is the goal and we believe in doing so through partnerships and collaborations. So who are the folks producing the best Alameda content out there? Do you think they’d be interested in working with us?
Best
David
Comment by Digidave — April 30, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
#5. According the the City’s org chart, there is one CM, one assistant CM and one deputy CM. Where are the other deputies that you mentioned?
Comment by Merc — April 30, 2009 @ 4:15 pm