|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Curiosity is an occupational hazard for journalists. After spending more than half my life in the industry, I have it – and its partners “skepticism” and “cynicism” – in spades.
So the first item on the Pleasanton City Council’s Nov. 19 consent agenda – “Approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Contract of City Manager Gerry Beaudin to provide for twelve months (sic) severance pay / benefits.” – definitely piqued my curiousity.
My immediate questions were why recommend providing Beaudin an additional six months of severance should a future council terminate his contract, and why now?
The agenda report did little to shed light on these questions as it referenced a “market analysis of total compensation for 16 comparable Bay Area cities,” but didn’t clarify which cities were surveyed. It also referred to Beaudin’s performance review, which took place in July.
I reached out to Mayor Karla Brown, since it appeared from the agenda report she was leading the effort, but didn’t receive a response. Realizing Brown had opened the email but did not reply, I asked Vice Mayor Julie Testa for answers and comments.
Fortunately, my colleagues picked up on the agenda item and provided context in a meeting preview story published Friday.
Regarding “total compensation,” Trujano wrote: “Pleasanton’s city manager has an annual salary that is 7% less than the average pay among his peers in comparable Bay Area cities, including a lower rate than Livermore’s Marianna Marysheva and first-year Dublin City Manager Colleen Tribby – whose contracts also include a 12-month severance stipulation.”
The council is not recommending an increase in Beaudin’s salary at this time because of fiscal constraints, but amending his severance package would better align Beaudin’s contract with those of city managers in neighboring communities.
Unfortunately, this extension — especially at this time — is being perceived as Beaudin not feeling secure in his position after the election.
Stating the obvious, concerns about potential instability could cause angst among city staff and partners, like the fire and police unions.
Lacking a response from the council, and feeling it is not appropriate to ask Beaudin to speak about the recommendation, I’m going to play devil’s advocate. Bear with me.
It could be argued that an extension of salary and benefits to 12 months could actually encourage stability. If one of the negative consequences of releasing the city manager was a significant cost to the city, it could motivate everyone to maintain and strengthen an effective work environment and relationships.
The timing could be explained by the current council, comprised of the five people who conducted Beaudin’s performance review in July, basically tying up loose ends before being recast.
But this is pure conjecture – laden with a heavy dose of “benefit of the doubt.”
The fact the proposed amendment is part of Tuesday’s consent calendar for items “considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion” just makes the recommendation even more questionable.
It would take someone pulling the item from the consent agenda for any discussion to take place. With the current council majority, that is highly unlikely to happen. It really should be continued, which is even more unlikely.
And, speaking of strange timing, the unaudited FY 2023-24 budget actuals will be discussed Tuesday. Leaders of the No on PP campaign, who asked voters to reject the city’s half-cent sales tax increase, had asked that the report for the fiscal year that ended June 30 be released prior to the election, citing a need for voters to know the current financial state of the city.
The No on PP chairperson and other members of the group speculated actual tax revenue would be better than expected, which would not fit the city’s budget-crisis narrative.
And, guess what, tax revenue was better than expected.
According to the preview story, “City officials contended that the budget actuals are always presented to the council in the November to December timeframe and that the 2024 timing was in no way impacted by the Measure PP election.”
Perhaps, but to have this on the agenda immediately following the election seems suspicious at best.
Releasing the unaudited report prior to the election would have been a nod toward transparency.
Removing the city manager’s contract amendment from the consent agenda so there is public discussion of the merits and disadvantages of the plan would be a nod toward transparency.
Transparency leads to trust, and there’s a serious need to rebuild trust in Pleasanton.
Gina Channell Wilcox has been the president and publisher of Embarcadero Media’s East Bay division since 2006.
