CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECIDES TO HIRE MANAGER
City Council workshops are notoriously under attended by the public. The workshop held on Thursday, August 27 was crowded in comparison with about 15 concerned citizens in the audience. The city council had a full and interesting agenda to cover. They started out with a presentation by Pinellas County Mosquito Control, where a representative of that organization gave the council a brief rundown of ways to prevent mosquitoes by attacking them in the larval stage before they got to be flying (and biting) insects. They do this by poisoning the water with a low level aquatic insecticide that only kills mosquito larvae and a few other invertebrates like shrimp and clams in a closed environment. Other tactics they use in permanent standing water is by using a fish, appropriately named a mosquito fish, a sort of minnow, which eats mosquito larvae and maintains a population by breeding and reproducing rather quickly. Covering the water with a surface film is also used to prevent the larvae from breathing at the top of the water column.
Next up was a discussion on whether to allow the use of golf carts on the city streets. Interim Attorney Tom Minkoff gave a brief rundown of the state laws concerning the use of golf carts on our city streets and then a discussion followed where the council people voiced their concerns regarding the age of drivers and the roadways where they would be allowed. It was agreed that the council would proceed with an ordinance to allow golf carts on our city streets.
Councilman Sam Henderson had brought up at a previous City Council meeting a concern by some Gulfport residents that they were unable to use the beach pavilions due to there not being a reservation policy concerning the pavilions. City staff looked at the situation as had the police department. After much discussion it was determined that a reservation policy would cause more difficulties then it would solve. Councilwoman Ryerson pointed out that the county had tried a reservation system at Fort DeSoto and had abandoned it as unworkable.
In a brief Discussion of the 2009/2010 Budget, city staff and council people discussed suggestions and comparisons of fees for services and utilities in the city. One of our revenue sources, the municipal marina is experiencing for the first time in many years, vacancies. Councilwoman Michele King asked if they could lengthen the stay that transients were allowed to stay from the current 72 hours to two weeks. Council agreed and such a policy will be drafted.
But the highlight of the meeting was a discussion of the residency requirement for the city manager position. Currently the city charter states that the City Manager must be a resident of the city. Interim City Manager Jim O’Reilly excused himself from the meeting and the council starting with Vice Mayor Worthington stated unanimously that they all wanted to see Jim O’Reilly hired as City Manager. The only impedance to that appointment was that O’Reilly lived outside of the city and did not want to move. Generally any change to the city charter must be submitted to the voters of Gulfport. Worthington stated that he had a conversation with the attorney for the Florida League of Cities who stated that they can change that part of the charter by ordinance. Thereby allowing the council to appoint Jim O’Reilly as permanent City Manager. Councilwoman King was astounded, as was much of the audience, that the charter, the constitution of our city, could be changed by ordinance and not by the will of the voters in a referendum. After much discussion the Council voted to move along with an ordinance allowing them to hire O’Reilly.
Additional Comments:
The Pinellas County Mosquito Control basically uses a Chrysanthemum based derivative, as it turns out mosquitoes have an alkaline based digestive system, whereas people and mammals have an acid based digestive system. Fogging is discouraged as they would prefer to get the larvae before it becomes a flying insect. In case they do fog, they do it between the hours of 3:45 and 6:45 in the morning, while most people sleep. The fogging does two things, it encourages the mosquito to get up early and fly whereupon it then attacks them with an airborne insecticide. In Gulfport, the number of abandoned homes, either through vacancies or foreclosure allows swimming pools and other places where water can accumulate to allow mosquitoes to breed unchecked. This problem can only get worse before it would get better as vacant properties continue to increase.
While the complications of our legal system can be overwhelming, it is inconceivable that the city council can change the charter to bend to their whims. After all the city charter is the backbone of our existence and the charter is there to make sure that the rights of the people are not thwarted by a council bent on taking a tack not approved by the voters of Gulfport.
Also it is inconceivable in today’s economy that someone would not move to acquire a $100,000+ a year job. If Mr. O’Reillys concerns are that his current residence has lost value so he would not want to sell it and take a substantially lesser amount for it, then he could equally find a residence here that has suffered the same fate. If his daughter’s education is a concern, as some contend, couldn’t school choice leave her in the same school?
The following from the City of Gulfport’s City Charter:
Section 314. Charter Amendment.
(a) Amendments to this charter which require a referendum election may be framed and submitted to the electors of the city by the city council or by the registered electors of the city in accordance with applicable state law. Amendments proposed by petition of the registered electors, in accordance with state law, shall be filed with the city clerk no less than one hundred twenty (120) days, nor more than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the next general municipal election. The city clerk shall submit said petition to the supervisor of elections to verify the signatures thereon, in accordance with state law and at the expense of the person, group or organization submitting the petition. Such person, group or organization shall register as a political action committee, if required to do so by state law. The council shall, in accordance with its regular council meeting schedule, provide by ordinance for submitting such proposed amendment to a vote of the electors at the next general municipal election, so long as the verification of the required petition signatures is provided by the supervisor of elections at least ninety (90) days prior to said election. City council may frame an appropriate ballot question from the petition, as necessary in its discretion. In the event such verification is not timely provided, or such petition is defective in any other manner, the issue framed by said petition shall not be placed on the next general municipal election ballot. If a proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, it shall become a part of the charter at the time fixed therein. The city council may also provide for amendment of this charter by ordinance, without a referendum election, to the extent allowed by law.
(b) At least once every ten (10) years, the council shall cause this charter to be reviewed for possible amendments.
(Ord. No. 85-38, §§ 1, 2, 1-7-86; Ord. No. 97-2, § 13, 1-21-97)
The Charter needs to be “readopted” so that it can’t be changed willy nilly, without a referendum.
…and wasn’t it telling that ICA Minkoff failed to point out that little tidbit in his presentation!!
It’s all new to all of us I think.
I believe that the citizens and the City Council have always believed (up to this point anyway) that the only way the charter could be changed was in a ballot initiative.
Certainly the last city attorney didn’t point that out, and if I had to guess, always led the council to believe that it could not be changed by ordinance.
Even I, who was on the last charter review committee never heard a peep about being able to change it by ordinance. And I have read the charter many times, I missed that phrase and of course was not here in the 70′s to even know that the rules had changed then.
But I am in total agreement, the whole charter should be readopted and possibly we could have a chartertsional convention.
Then the charter, which we all thought was sacrosanct, shall in fact become.
I agree it is new to all of us.
My concern stems from the fact that Christine Brown indicated that she and Minkoff had discussed the fact that the Charter could be readopted, yet he failed to mention it in his presentation. One can’t help but wonder why? Maybe some of the Council members don’t want it re-adopted? Minkoff gets NO PASS on that one from me–sorry. I might be a little more forgiving if he weren’t so quick to toot his own horn!!
I also agree that Driscoll should have advised us of that too!
Seems like they just want O’Reilly to part of the “good ol boy club” without taking into consideration any of his credentials. Sad state of affairs Gulf Port council, when you manipulate the system to get what you want.
Bill – Nice to see a new “face” on here! You have a point — but that’s politics in G’port and if you disagree with them they have their co-horts attack you with false accusations.
IMO they manipulated the system to get Minkoff. He then bragged endlessly about settling the PYCC case and come to find out it was the outside attorneys that did it. What really scares me is that some on the Council view Jim as being easily manipulated and that’s why they are hiring him.
What will be very telling is when they decide if the charter should be re-adopted or if they just wan to leave it as is so they can continue their manipulations.
It would be nice to get some fresh faces on Council–maybe somebody that actually has a clue about efficient operations, utilizes out of the box thinking, actually can see past the end of their nose and puts leadership ahead of politics.
What is real?
The City of Gulfport Florida lost their City Manager when he was too ill to continue to perform his duties. The City Manager recommended Jim O’Reilly to stand in his stead, or until a new City Manager could be acquired. Jim O’Reilly performed the duties of City Manager competently and the Council and Staff concluded that he was qualified to do the job. The only thing standing in the way of hiring him, as Manager, was that he resided outside the City limits.
Action= By means of exercising their legal authority the City of Gulfport changed the requirement that a City Manager needs to reside in Gulfport.
Objection= The proposed City manager does not have the credentials to qualify for this position on the open market.
Appearances= It appears that by hiring a manager from inside of the present government that the action is a result of cronyism.
Argument= Although it could appear that cronyism exits, his experience and job performance would counter that appearance with a demonstration of meritocracy.
Using the pejorative term “Good ol’ Boy” could apply if no others factors, other than he grew up here and works for the City were considered. I suspect that a fair and more accurate assessment would arise if everything were to be considered.
Jim arrived at his job of Director of Leisure services when the last City Manager brought him along. I questioned that move, more than I question this new job assignment, but he performed that job well. I always thought of him as the City managers assistant. Being the assistant he was able to watch the workings of a Managers Job, and his close relationship with the last Manager gave him the insight he needed to help Gulfport in a troubled time.
In a broad sense they owe him for assuming the roll that he clearly did not want originally, according to Dr. Jennifer Salmon who had interviewed him when the transition first became clear. He enjoyed the job he had and level of responsibility, and he wasn’t looking forward to taking on a larger role.
That interview and assessment informed me that this decision by the City wasn’t so much a crony move on the part of the City as much as it was an action of desperation, the City had no other viable options and it seems neither did Jim.
I have to conclude that this was an action of circumstance as bad as it may appear on the surface. It’s not ideal, but neither would a new Manager be, no one is without issues. The time wasted breaking in a new manager now would be worse than anything that this choice has demonstrated.
Be Well!
2iview-I agree with your assessment of the City Manager situation. Now that it is clear that Jim will be our New Manager without any real “search,” I guess we have to live with that. I know from observation that Jim will give it his best shot and I wish him well.
Once the appointment is official, the next step will be to negotiate a contract with the Council. I hope for everyone’s sake that it is a thorough, fair and binding document. A good, tough contract can lessen any fears that Jim wont be able to stand up to members of the Council where principle will almost surely demand he do.
Big Dog- I do realize that one of your concerns was that the “search” lacked due diligence, but I’ve not come to that conclusion because I don’t have any data to substantiate the claim.
I can imagine what they may find in a search for a manager though, having had to seek one out in another fields of endeavor, it’s not a simple task I discovered. There will be many students looking to break into the market, build a résumé. Or, an experienced managers demanding a higher scale and less responsibility.
The rate of compensation paid in Florida is not commensurate with the scale one would find in 45 States so the field would be drastically reduced. There are software packages and online membership that can seek out what you want without too much pain, so I have to reserve my criticism for something I can get my teeth into, they may have searched when no one was looking.
The contract shouldn’t be too much different than what was offered to Mr. Brobeil, with a few alterations. I would suspect one could acquire that contract and examine it to see what changes were made, if any?
I’m sure he knew what direction Mr. Brobeil was headed, and who knows what and can get things done. The City’s course is clear at this point and it just seems to me a matter of style and integrity. If he does well he’ll have a life long position, if he fails then the citizens can take him to task. City managers are not headstones, they do have a high turnover rate.
Be Well!
I think Troxler’s take on this issue is also applicable to G’port and others. Let’s see, how do you spell c h i c k e n s? How long did that take? And then how long did it take to approve an overbudget matter of $62K? Hmmm. Just some food for thought. Enjoy!
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/to-be-frank-st-petersburg-is-being-a-weenie-over-hot-dog-sales/1038070
Troxler’s point is that it takes to long, and by extension you point about the chickens, and the manager I’ll assume.
He used the Baseball field as an analogy, which is hardly analogous to the issue. If they passed the ball field plan there would hardly be hundreds of ball fields popping up on every street corner, where wiener leniency would have a broader impact.
As it applies to chickens and a manager, the same observation could apply. If you allow chickens you could have “chickens running through the streets of Gulfport” as Mrs. Ryerson warned, so the facts would need to be studied and the impacted over a broader scope would need to be considered.
The task of seeking out a manager from inside the city wouldn’t expect that we would have additional managers on every corner as a result of this consideration. Of course there could be exceptions to this observation. If we didn’t spend enough time seeking a manager and it was thought to be an abrupt process, in comparison to the ball field, I don’t seeing that either, it’s been over a year and it doesn’t seem that anyone was breaking down the doors for the job.
Is there any public information on the process the city used to acquire a manager? Any interview data, the request and resumé requirements published? Can the public view the process of elimination that resulted in the outcome?
From my perspective, the point was that you have to wonder how the issues are sometimes prioritized and how what would “seem” to be a reasonably easy issue to fix drags on forever. On the other hand, what would appear to be much more critical decisions, get done in a flash. My 62K reference was to the non budgeted legal fees approved without question a few weeks ago. It happens in all governments, just thought it was food for thought.
I understand your point mTober, that issue would be under appropriations, which would need no public input….I’ll guess.
I’m sure that this issue was examined before the new attorney was selected, attorney swapping was suggested years ago, so it most likely spent a longer time in consideration than was apparent on the surface.
I understand the suspicion of not being cognizant of city activity when you’re so engaged in it’s activity, but there is probably a lot of ongoing work being done by the staff and council that the public is not aware of.
From my observation the City doesn’t volunteer everything to the public in one place. Parts and pieces can be found in reports both public and internal. Freedom of Information does allow you some access, but one would need to know what to pursue and the accurate questions to ask to acquire everything that pertain to an issue.
Open questions will produce incomplete answers, or incomplete studies will result in empty answers. If they are unsure of a choice and want to experiment with a issue, for example, like the Tuskegee experiment, they will be vague and illusive as they were with the smokehouse debacle.
If the experiment is successful they will go through a period of selfpraise and back slapping, but if it’s a total failure, the will avoid any responsibility and try to solve the problem by attrition.
If the choice in our new attorney is a bad gamble and the increase in legal wins does not justify the increase in expenditures, then they will quietly work behind the scenes to stir public concern while shifting the blame to the attorney or the problem they faced rather than the action they took. Don’t expect them to stand up in public and admit they were wrong, or take responsibility for their actionsor inactions.
None of which addresses the problem of the beach pavillions. To demonstrate where this problem is headed, let me tell you about last Independence Day. At 8 am there were people already sitting on the pavilions at the beach, fairly clearly intending to hold the pavilion for their exclusive use all day. In some cases the party was already assembled and settling in for a day at the beach. In other cases, they had simply parked a teenager in a pavilion to hold it until the troops arrived. NOTE: NONE of the cars parked near these pavilions had Gulfport beach parking stickers.
The first step is to go back to requiring resident parking stickers in the beach parking lot during daylight hours. Or charging for parking, however you want to do it. But the current system is not working to guarantee preferred access to Gulfport residents.