Sunday, September 25, 2016

Should Sierra Madre's New City Manager Be Required To Live In Town?

The answer to that question is don't even bother asking. The state, in its infinite venal stupidity, has made it illegal for cities such as Sierra Madre to require its administrative officers to actually live here. Despite all of the advantages such an arrangement would bring to this town.

Having a City Manager with an actual stake in the success of the community would seem like it would be the way to go. But apparently Sacramento wasn't into any arrangements like that. And in order to please a few of their union financed benefactors (police and fire is what I have heard), they legislated any such opportunities completely out of existence.

At one time the City of Sierra Madre did recognize that this is how things ought to be. Currently it actually is city law that the City Manager must live in town. However, this has been unenforceable ever since state law declared a few decades back that carpetbaggers must be considered for such a position, and once hired cannot be required to actually live in the city they are paid by the residents to run.

A condition that could go a long ways in explaining Sierra Madre's current $9 million dollars in CalPERS debt. It is doubtful that a city resident would have ever allowed such an awful thing to happen to this community. But if you aren't from here, why would you ever care?

Councilmember Capoccia, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that the time has come to bring city law into line with the state requirements in this matter. The point is moot of course, because what the city has on the books cannot in any way be enforced. But I suppose this at least allows the Councilmember to believe he has actually done something of real importance.

It is the last item on Tuesday evening's City Council meeting agenda. Here is how this largely unnecessary action reads:


Congratulations.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

33 comments:

  1. It doesn't say you can't hire someone who does live in the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City Hall has hired a consultant to search for a new City Manager. The area of the search is the entire state of California. The cost to the taxpayers is $27,000.

      Delete
    2. I would settle for someone who is honest and truthful. Yes that is a limited stndard and a very low bar.But it would be a huge improvement over Elaine Aguillar and Bruce Inman.

      Delete
  2. The Police Chief, the Fire Captain and the Volunteers and just about everyone that worked for the City lived here in town

    ReplyDelete
  3. A very small hiring pool to choose from. Why doesn't the City go back to the days of having a City Administrator?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If someone lives in the city as a condition of their employement imagine how hard it would be to get rid of this employee, claimes of hardship in selling their home as they move on to their next failed effort as a city employee.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Bart Doyle days on City Council is when the City Administrator was replaced by an "outsider" City Manager.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great. They're going to hire someone who never even heard of Sierra Madre before. And what are the chances this new hire will have development, pensions and wacko state mandates at the top of their list? Maybe 99%?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That they haven't herd of Sierra Madre is irrelevant to their competence.But please let's have someone who is at least honest about their socialist and public union sympathies ?
      If their real interest is in boosting the size, power and tax-grabbing power of local government - say so before they are appointed.This question needs to be asked directly of each candidate - so that if they deny their socialist agenda and then try to implement it - they can be fired for cause.

      Delete
    2. The entire city hall establishment is sympathetic to public employee unions. Why do you think they spent all that money to rescue the SMPD?

      Delete
  7. This is a very big decision. Why is it being put into the hands of a consultant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Responsibility avoidance.

      Delete
  8. Its tough to locate a low pay paper pusher that can shuffle the agenda every few years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nobody any good would want to work for a city that is going broke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Garcia said that the UUT increase would take care of everything. So your concerns are misplaced.

      Delete
  10. The city council needs to take responsibility for running this city and find an administrator who will follow their orders.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remind us who Richard Garcia is. I think the claims of the increase of the UUT to "save" Sierra Madre went out the window when one of the first acts was to hire the current libararian under the guise of combining librarian and community services. To save money? Why save money if the UUT increase was going to save our bacon. What rot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Garcia was Martin Truitt's sock puppet "Yes On Measure UUT" head last spring. Probably who is being discussed here. Truitt will run him for City Council in 2018.

      Official Facebook Page of Sierra Madre's Yes on Measure UUT Campaign Committee, FPPC# 1382371, Ed Garcia, Chairman
      117 E Grandview Ave,Sierra Madre, CA
      http://www.sierramadreusa.com/

      Delete
  12. Saving the city would mean that the Council would revert back to an Administrator. I bet this Council isn't interested in that. Bart Doyle and Michelle Keith are their little darlings.
    Why else would this Council only wish to save money with the City Clerk position being elemented? That's pennies on the dollar. Now there won't be any paper trail to hold them accountable and recordings and sound systems; well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on Elaine's total yearly compensation the city would save almost $1 million in 4 years if it eliminated the City Manager job.

      Delete
  13. It's constitutional, so it can't be a requirement. The question then is may a city manager candidate agree to waive that right as part of contract negotiations?

    We waive rights all the time when entering into contracts, so why can't a city manager agree, say, for an additional $5k per year, or maybe in these cash strapped times for an exclusive, prime parking space on the Boulevard with a gilded "City Manager" sign and an official looking "City Manager" windbreaker, to live in the city?

    There, I raised the Q, now someone do the research.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Was it Martin Truitt that ran Rochelle's campaign? Who ever that guy was; at the end of the evening on election night, was over heard to say; "it takes spending a lot of money to win an election".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. How else are you going to sell such big lies?

      Delete
  15. Every one should write the city council and insist that the public be included in the process of choosing the new city manager.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The UUT passed. Ed Garcia spearheaded it. He is a good friend of Ms. Arizmendi. He is just waiting in the wings for a nice cushy job at City Hall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to Truitville. It worked so well for Pasadena.

      Delete
  17. So, Mr. Garcia has everything in common with Bart Doyle? is Rochelle a "Mosca" in disguise? Waiting to further their Political Careers? Something is definitely wrong with the water we are drinking if the community votes for who spends the most money.

    ReplyDelete
  18. They all get sucked in. They start out representing the residents, but the establishment has so much to offer. Honors, commissions, special task forces, flattery, special trips to Sacramento, appointments by Governor Brown. Our local heroes become too big for us. And then they start pushing crap.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wasn't it that darling young manager John Gillison that tried to compel the City of Sierra Madre to purchase a home for him within city limits if they were going to enforce the "live in Sierra Madre" clause? City refused. Gillison eventually went off to another town. But yes, Mr. Mod, you are correct. The courts ruled decades ago - maybe bordering on 60 years - that it was unconstitutional to require employees to live in the same jurisdiction in which they were employed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you post incorrect information? 60 years ago? You have a cite you can share?

      Delete
  20. 5:16pm. You are correct. Attend City Council meetings! Wasn't it Bart Doyle that pushed for change for Manager vs. Administrator. Didn't he find Gillison or at the very least ; he and that Councel kept an eye on him until a City wide audit revealed "creative book keeping"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, did anyone catch the 60 Minutes report tonight about how Putin may use a low yield nuke as a demonstration to get the U.S. and NATO to back down if, say, he wishes to annex Latvia and Estonia?

    The lesson is that it makes a great deal of sense to elect Trump because, after all, a Trump presidency will mean that Putin need not make a nuclear demonstration. All he'll need to do is pick up the phone and call his orange-haired best buddy, who will do the bidding of Putin and their Russian oligarchy business partners.

    See how those middle class white Trump supporters can actually save us through preemptive capitulation!

    ReplyDelete