As if in answer to his own question ("Council hegemony" what are you talking about?), this week Councilmember Cam Hill was quoted in the Daily Tarheel insinuating that his colleague Laurin Easthom is not a "team player" because she is often on the losing end of 8-1 votes.
I will chalk up the rude tone of his comments to the DTH's patented 18-year-old filter (in which almost every direct quotation in the paper sounds as if it came out of the mouth of a college student) and instead address the substance. Ever since I have been on the Chapel Hill Planning Board, I have been on the losing end of many of the split votes we've had - usually 8-2 or often 9-1. And yet I don't believe a single member of the Board thinks I'm not working with them toward the many goals we share. In fact, my colleagues unanimously elected me as their chair last year!
Any of them would tell you that when I vote against the majority, it is always on a matter of principle that is very important to me, and that I never object in a way that obstructs the work of the board as a whole. I think Laurin has done the same thing. She has raised many important questions, and has not received adequate answers.
What I am surprised at is that there aren't more Council members raising questions. For example... why did the tech Board and Horace Williams Committee have to be shut down instead of reconfigured... why are we spending more on the new manager's transition than we spent on the entire hiring process... why don't we have a committee to consider a municipal wifi network... and many others including why does it appear that so many critical issues are being decided outside of the public eye?
Seeing as how Laurin was the top vote getter in the 2005 election, I think it's unwise of the Council to brush off her concerns as just so much neophyte worrying. I'm glad she understands that public service about more than just winning. So if he's not playing with Laurin, just who's team is Cam on?
Issues:
Comments
Big congratulations to Ruby
Big congratulations to Ruby who retained the chair's gavel for the Planning Board tonight. Well maybe there's no gavel but you get the point.
And George C. is the new vice chair.
As able a leadership team as you could ask for.
$30k instead of $50k for mr
$30k instead of $50k for mr dempsey.
five thousand a month for about 20 hours a week. i bet you could even afford to live IN chapel hill with that.
daniel
Today's N&O has a story by
Today's N&O has a story by Mark Schultz on some of the details of the Dempsey contract signed Monday by the Mayor. The amount is $30K for six months, 20 hours a week.
Given the scope of work items, I still think Mr. Dempsey did the right thing when he resigned as chair of the Planning Board. I am even more convinced that a sitting board chair, any board chair, should not have at the same time a no-bid personal services contract like this.
"Among his duties, Dempsey will:
* Develop benchmarks for new manager Roger Stancil's first 12 months.
* Help the council develop a performance-based measure for evaluating Stancil.
* Help the council and town manager devise strategies for organizational development."
Also, "Foy also said Monday that Dempsey will be expected to help train town employees to "remake their jobs" to meet the contract's goals of a more efficient and creative town government. Unlike Fayetteville, where Stancil worked, he said, Chapel Hill does not have an organizational development expert on staff."
Dan, Tim's contract amounts
Dan,
Tim's contract amounts to about $60/hr. I think that would be considered very reasonable (in fact, downright cheap) in just about any area of business where consultants are used. What you need to remember is that Tim, as a independent contractor, will be required to pay the full FICA premium (15.3%) on his income and any other associated costs of doing business. Most experts recommend that consultants charge at least twice what they would be paid in a full-time job since consulting is often only a part-time gig. The advantage to the contractee is that they incur no long-tern liabilities associated with a full-time employee.
Absolutely fantastic the
Absolutely fantastic the town will be "un-making" the previous organizational structure and focusing on both staff development - remaking their jobs and job strategies - and tapping into staffs innate talent and creativity (where have I heard that before?).
Staff development and reorganization is a big task - but it wasn't originally proffered as an explanation for the hire. Certainly would've been easy enough to tell Laurin, the citizenry, etc. that was the game plan.
This has the feel of some post-dated justification.
Our town's unhealthy usage of consultants, a reliance on outside skillsets without an emphasis on skill transfer/personnel development, continues to be troubling but, in this case, it does make sense to hire outside because of the unusual task and the necessity for unencumbered decision-making.
And $60/hr. is a great deal - that is if we have specific tasks and goals for his work. I've yet to see a punchlist of what Tim is expected to do. So, unfortunately, we'll have to measure, after the fact, the benefits.
And not all responsibility lies on Tim. Council's job, maybe with some guidance from Tim, should be to determine performance-based criteria for measuring Stancil's work (another big task). They can't, as they sometime do, habitually "send it on to staff".
How's this different than Roger Waldon's hire? Roger's skills, if they were so unique, should've been distributed to others within his department. Why couldn't the remaining staff work the NCD problem?
I wonder if someone on staff will be assigned to "team up" with Tim so that we'll at least retain, over the longterm, some of the skills he'll be using.
Pages