What we have here is a failure to communicate. That sums up the
lame decision by the City Council
– a decision made behind closed doors – to authorize 5 percent
raises for the city manager and city clerk. Really, what are they
thinking?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. That sums up the lame decision by the City Council – a decision made behind closed doors – to authorize 5 percent raises for the city manager and city clerk. Really, what are they thinking?
Well, for starters we’ll apparently never know, and that’s the first problem. The public should know, for example, what Councilman Peter Arellano thinks about giving 5 percent raises to the two employees who directly report to the City Council after having laid off 48 city employees. Arellano, after all, is considering a bid for Santa Clara County Supervisor where he would be one of 5 people in charge of a $4 billion annual budget. What he’s thinking is important for residents and voters to know.
That’s not accomplished when the Council votes in closed session to authorize the mayor to give raises and doesn’t discuss the issue in front of the cameras and in the public arena.
Do they think Gilroyans are clairvoyant, or is it just that’s giving raises right now is kind of a touchy subject, especially when one of those receiving an increase makes about $200,000 per year?
The whole process stinks. The mayor should not be the authorized agent to review and grant raises to the city administrator and city clerk. The Council should do the review, appropriately, in closed session and all Council members should have a chance to discuss the employee’s strengths and weaknesses together. Why are the other Council members forfeiting that right?
Financial discussions, especially given the distressed climate of the city and its residents (unemployment here is above 17 percent, folks), should be held in open session where the people have the opportunity to understand the logic behind decisions and what positions their elected representatives are taking.
With each passing decision, this Council indelicately descends down the ladder of credibility. Where the public’s confidence will sink to is anyone’s guess at this point.
Failing to publicly report closed-session votes on such items of intense public interest only further damages the Council’s waning credibility.
A spot check on the community’s pulse from our Web Poll and the community board makes it crystal clear that the people in Gilroy think this latest move qualifies as “felony stupid.”
It’s hard to disagree, and it’s mystifying that the Council would a) make such a decision under the circumstances; and b) do so behind closed doors without reporting anything about the discussion or process to the public.
The actions border on arrogance. That’s no way to run our city.
