After a bit of drama a week earlier, this past Monday the Maplewood City Council did vote to approve the contract hiring James Antonen as our new city manager. Mr. Antonen is probably en route as I type this, and we anticipate that he will be sitting in the manager's chair at this coming Monday's council meeting.

The Maplewood Review has a couple of articles up this week about how things unfolded: one about the meeting on Feb. 23 where a motion to approve the contract contingent upon acceptance of the final background check failed, and another "news flash" online story about the final approval after the completed background check was approved.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 3/05/2009 09:30:00 AM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

This past weekend, the Pioneer Press ran a story about our city manager search. It ended with a quote from me, as follows:

Nephew said he's looking forward to a city manager who has no previous ties to the city.
“These guys weren't associated with some of Maplewood's political stuff or previous management on either side," he said. "They'll at least be starting from a clean slate."

I wanted to take some time to unpack this and try to articulate how I'm looking at the city manager search process, especially as we'll be making the major decision tonight as to whether or not to hire a new city manager.

Conventional wisdom divides our council into two factions. One way to look at the factions is to see which managers they supported. For example, Mayor Longrie and Councilmember Hjelle removed former city manager Richard Fursman as soon as they could in 2006. They installed Greg Copeland as interim manager, and a few months later decided to cancel the search process that had begun and appoint Mr. Copeland permanent manager.

Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach opposed Fursman's removal, and Copeland's appointment. Many times on the campaign trail (and in this blog), I criticized Mr. Copeland's performance and qualifications, and I agreed with Rossbach and Juenemann that Maplewood needed a change of management. Thus at my first meeting on the council we let Mr. Copeland go.

We must have a manager, however, and our city is very lucky that we had Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works, at hand and willing to assume the mantle of Acting City Manager. He has done an amazing job in highly adverse circumstances, and I can't praise him enough for his performance. The budget we recently passed and the contracts reached with all the city's bargaining units are testimony to his leadership. After a period of difficult relations among management, employees, and the city council, Mr. Ahl has provided stability, an environment of teamwork, improved productivity, and superior results.

But as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Because Mr. Ahl was willing to accept that responsibility when the new majority decided to remove Mr. Copeland, his very act of stepping forward made him “the enemy” to some people. For example, at one meeting last year, I was told that the mayor's husband was in the back of the room handing out flyers attacking Mr. Ahl. I don't agree with the criticisms or attacks on Mr. Ahl; rather, I think that they spring from a sort of “tit for tat” mentality. People who supported Mr. Copeland may feel that criticism of him was purely political, despite the evidence to the contrary, and that same political sentiment then drives them to attack and criticize Mr. Ahl.

What I see here is a political dynamic that is destructive and costly to our city. On the campaign trail I sometimes compared this to the legendary “Hatfield and McCoy” family feud, and said that I wanted a city manager search process that would move us beyond it. By taking our time with this process, and engaging the entire council and the larger community as we have, I believe we have an opportunity to break that cycle. Of course there's no guarantee that a manager who begins with the support of both factions will keep that support in the months and years that follow. A manager takes direction from the majority, and it's hard for people not to associate the messenger with the message. But my hope is that removing the perception that the city manager's office is aligned with one council faction or another will help build long-term stability – to better insulate the manager's office, and the city staff, from the shifting winds of city politics.

Labels: council politics, manager search

Posted by John Nephew on 1/26/2009 04:21:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

Today the three candidates for City Manager are being interviewed over at City Hall by the two panels, one made up of residents and Maplewood business owners, the other city employees. The day's events culminate in a social reception at the Maplewood Community Center, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. The interviews and the social reception are open to the public, and I'd encourage members of the community to come and get a first-hand impression of the candidates.

I'm looking forward to meeting the candidates, and I hope that one of them will be the perfect fit for Maplewood's future.

Labels: events, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 1/06/2009 10:51:00 AM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

Last night we had a special meeting at 5:00 PM to review the resumes of a dozen semifinalists recommended to us by our consultants for the city manager search. This meeting was not in fact a closed session, as indicated on the agenda, since our attorneys informed us that there was not a basis in the Open Meeting Law for closing the meeting. Instead, to preserve private applicant data, we simply referred to each applicant by a number instead of a name.

To select finalists, each member of the council submitted a list of the applicants (by numbers) that we wished to interview. A councilmember could select all applicants, none, or any number in between. There was remarkable consensus -- two candidates were on the lists of all five of us, and another three were each on 4 of 5 lists. That gave us five candidates, the very number our consultant recommended we select as finalists. I offered a motion to name those five as our finalists; Erik Hjelle gave his second; and the motion carried unanimously.

The finalists, whose names are now public, are as follows (in alphabetical order, with their current or most recent city management position):

1. James W. Antonen, former City Manager of Davis, California
2. William P. Barlow, Village Manager of Winfield, Illinois
3. Daniel J. Donahue, former City Manager of New Hope, Minnesota
4. Stephen P. King, City Administrator of South Saint Paul, Minnesota
5. Timothy Madigan, City Administrator of Faribault, Minnesota

We also agreed unanimously on the next steps in the process. The plan is to have the finalists interviewed by our two advisory panels on January 6th or 7th. We will ask the panels to make a written report to us no later than Monday, January 12th. After reviewing the reports and interviews of the panels, we will conduct our own interviews of all five finalists later that week (most likely on January 14th).

UPDATE: The council was just informed that Mr. Barlow has accepted another job and removed himself from consideration. So, we will proceed with the four remaining finalists.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 12/16/2008 11:16:00 AM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

With the budget out of the way and the comprehensive plan sent to neighboring jurisdictions for comment, we still have a major piece of business for the council: the ongoing process to select a new city manager.

Our consultants at the PAR Group have provided to the council the resumés and applications of 12 individuals, out of at least four dozen total applicants, for our consideration in a closed meeting at Monday.

The identities of these individuals are at this point confidential. According to Minnesota Statutes § 13.43, subd. 3 (that's part of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act),

Names of applicants shall be private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, "finalist" means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.

On Monday, we will review the applications in closed session with Mr. Bernard from the PAR Group, and then select finalists for interview.

Because the identities of applicants are private data at this point, I can't say a lot about them, but I think I am not going too far by suggesting that we have a lot of impressive, well qualified choices.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 12/13/2008 10:23:00 AM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

I concluded my previous entry by saying that "it seems clear from the court's opinion that no one even questioned the fact the advisory committee was not subject to the Open Meeting Law."

The reason for this is simple -- it was already established case law from sixteen years earlier (Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)).

A legislative information brief about the Open Meeting Law explains, referencing this case (p. 4):

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups. In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee of the governing body for purposes of the open meeting law. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make a final decision.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 12/06/2008 12:38:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

At our last Council Manager Workshop, we were discussing the application of the Open Meeting Law to the citizen panels that are helping screen finalists for the position of city manager. At the meeting, Mayor Longrie cited a 2004 court case, Star Tribune et al. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, et al., to support her contention that all of the panels' deliberations -- specifically, their development of questions that they would ask the candidates in the interviews – needed to be public.

After Monday's workshop, I thought I should look up the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision and read it for myself. The mayor read aloud some sections that would seem to support her position. However, what the court was interpreting in that case was whether or not the Board of Regents itself (the university's equivalent to the city council) – not their advisory search panel – was subject to the Open Meeting Law.

In discussing the case, the court mentions a Presidential Search Advisory Committee (PSAC), which was created by the Regents to "recruit, screen and recommend candidates." And, "From those candidates recommended by the PSAC, the Regents would select finalists who would be publicly interviewed and considered by the Regents, as required by the Open Meeting Law and the Board of Regents Bylaws." In other words, the PSAC is similar to the advisory panels the Maplewood City Council has set up to help evaluate our city manager candidates.

No one questioned that the work of the PSAC was not done in public. On the contrary, the plaintiffs only raised their objections about the actions of the Board -- after the PSAC's work was done.

The mayor drew a false analogy, comparing the University of Minnesota Board of Regents with our advisory search panels. The true analogy would be between our panels and the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. And it seems clear from the court's opinion that no one even questioned the fact the advisory committee was not subject to the Open Meeting Law.

Labels: council politics, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 12/05/2008 02:43:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

In preparation for last night's interviews of the two search firm finalists, I prepared three questions in advance to ask them both.

1. Maplewood was in the media a lot in the past couple of years, and often not in a positive light. How would you describe this publicity to a prospective applicant in a way that is honest but still makes Maplewood attractive as a place to work?
2. We are a council with some strong differences of opinion and personality. Although I hope for unanimous support of a final choice, it may not be possible for us to unite behind the one candidate in the end. From your experience and professional judgement, do you think this is a major problem for Maplewood's ability to attract and retain a highly qualified city manager; and what will you do, as part of your role in the process, to mitigate the problem?
3. I've heard it said that it is especially hard to attract candidates from outside of Minnesota because of factors such as the salary caps in place in our state. Do you think it is possible to recruit on a truly nation-wide basis, and how do you plan to achieve that?

Labels: manager search

Posted by John Nephew on 7/29/2008 09:25:00 AM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

At our last council meeting I asked for an update on the request for proposals to city manager search firms. We were told that the RFP had been sent out to a number of firms, and after the meeting the RFP document itself was provided to the council by e-mail. I'm not sure if it's on the city website, but for folks who are curious I thought I'd make it into a PDF and put it on my website here so that anyone who is curious can download it.

Labels: manager search

Posted by John Nephew on 7/01/2008 05:19:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

I wanted to take a moment to talk about the council's dismissal of the city manager and our recent settlement. I voted to dismiss Mr. Copeland because I believe he isn't suited to work with Maplewood's new city council. I disagreed with his philosophy on management and labor, as I heard him express it and witnessed its practical effects on the city's budget, reorganization, and related lawsuits. I believe he politicized his role by implementing the agendas of particular members of the council instead of serving the council as a whole, and because of this I don't trust him. A city council, in my view, has a duty to employ a city manager who has their trust and confidence and to replace one who does not.

In asking outside counsel to help with Mr. Copeland's dismissal, I had three goals:

1. Remove Mr. Copeland from office
2. Reduce the cost of Mr. Copeland's severance package
3. Reduce or eliminate the risk of litigation from Mr. Copeland's removal

The main points of the final settlement are:

• Mr. Copeland is removed without cause.
• Mr. Copeland withdrew his request for written charges and a public hearing.
• Mr. Copeland agreed to a very broad release and discharge of any possible litigation he might have brought against the city.
• The city agreed to pay Mr. Copeland's salary and benefits through June 14th. This amounts to five months of severance, if you include the time he's been on paid leave. The city also agreed to reimburse a number of work-related expenses from late last year, provided the appropriate receipts are submitted. The parties agreed to what exactly “benefits” includes (namely, the city's contribution to health, dental, disability, and life insurance).
• The city agreed not to bring suit against Copeland for known claims, with two items specifically mentioned.
• The city's release does not include any presently unknown claims, nor any criminal charges that might be prosecuted. The city also reserves the right to bring him in to any lawsuit that results from actions he took as city manager, if he is not indemnified by Minnesota Statute 466.07. (This statute requires cities to indemnify officers and employees who are sued for actions taken in the performance of their duties, with exceptions for malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.)
• The settlement agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Copeland and the city, superceding any other agreements or understandings.

By taking our time, consulting with our attorneys, and negotiating these terms for Mr. Copeland's departure, I think we took the right path in serving the interests of the city, and we achieved my three goals.

In terms of monetary savings, we clearly saved at least one month of severance expenses. This alone covers the fees of outside counsel, and saves a little more for the taxpayers besides.

More importantly, Mr. Copeland's release and discharge lays to rest all the legal questions that were swirling in the air, at least on the civil front. Whatever you may think of the validity of the agreement signed by Mayor Longrie and Mr. Copeland, we won't have to spend any money debating it in court. That document is now moot as far as Mr. Copeland's employment with the city is concerned.

As I said before voting to approve the settlement, I do believe there was just cause to dismiss Mr. Copeland. But the financial benefit from doing that was limited. At best, we could have avoided paying six months of severance. Mr. Copeland's lawyer had indicated his willingness to sue to obtain that severance, so those savings had to be weighed against the legal expenses of taking a stand. While I think we would have won in the end, I also think we probably would have spent more than the value of Mr. Copeland's severance in making our case.

I realize that some residents will feel let down by the settlement, and will wish that we had opted for a public confrontation. Besides the lack of a financial upside for doing that, we also have to consider the impact it would have had on the community. A drawn-out battle would reopen wounds, further polarize the community, and distract us from important business that needs our attention. In short, rather than helping repair the dysfunction of the past two years, my worry is that an extended struggle over Copeland's dismissal would prolong it.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that the problem with Mr. Copeland was ultimately not about him as an individual, but the role he played as a faithful tool in the hands of last year's council majority. Personal hostility towards him is misplaced. The previous majority appointed him and expressed satisfaction with his performance time and again, because he was in fact doing what they wanted to see done. The responsibility should rest on their shoulders when the true costs of the past two years of mismanagement are tallied.

Labels: council politics, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew on 2/22/2008 06:56:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet

Articles in this morning's Star Tribune and Pioneer Press preview this evening's upcoming council meeting. Not surprisingly, much attention is paid to Will Rossbach's agenda item, regarding a process for transition in the city manager's office.

Erik Hjelle is quoted by the Pioneer Press as saying, "I find it absolutely stunning that this is on the agenda." Given that Mr. Hjelle explicitly framed the 2007 election as being in part a vote of confidence in Mr. Copeland's leadership, it's hard to believe he's stunned that the topic would be on the agenda of the first meeting of the new year after the voters spoke.

When Mr. Hjelle offered the motion to make Mr. Copeland permanent in November 2006, he put it in the context of the upcoming 2007 elections. Speaking about Mr. Copeland's probationary period, he said, "Basically, that's before the next election. Everybody's going to have the right to go to the ballot box and make the ultimate decision as to what they want to support, what they don't want to support. It's called democracy. It works real well."

I was present at the meeting where Erik said this, and it's fair to say this is one of the reasons I decided to run for office -- to give voters a clear choice to ratify the agenda of last year's council majority and the person they installed to implement it, or to choose another path.

The voters knew what they were voting on. Their decision was unambiguous, with a dramatic increase in turnout and a landslide victory for the two candidates representing change, over the two candidates for whom Mr. Hjelle actively campaigned. While Mr. Hjelle may personally disagree with the will of the voters, I hope that he can respect their decision.

Labels: council politics, manager search, media

Posted by John Nephew on 1/14/2008 01:29:00 PM Email to a Friend | Permalink | Comments
Tweet