It’s been a month since former Peoria City Manager Randy Oliver was fired without cause from his job in Surprise, Arizona. When Oliver left Peoria, part of his severance agreement was that neither he nor the City could talk about why he left, including whether he resigned willingly or was asked to resign. No such gag order was included in Oliver’s walking papers from Surprise, and one council member there — Sharon Wolcott — is telling the press there exactly why she voted to terminate the City Manager after just two years:

Mr. Oliver is a good technician, but he was not the right choice to lead this effort moving forward. He possessed the technical skills to manage day-to-day affairs of an organization such as ours, but he clearly did not possess the personal skills to resist bullying from “above.” He regularly chose to take direction from a select few.

Until people who hold the title of mayor, council member and city manager understand and embrace their respective roles, lines will be crossed and a culture of discord will hamper our ability to move forward. The roles are clearly defined in ordinance. An effective manager knows how to unify differing viewpoints from a policy perspective and resist interference by a mayor or any member of the City Council.

Asking for special favors, new programs or directing staff time is a common practice at City Hall and may seem harmless enough at first. But each time a member of the council or the mayor crosses over into the management side of city government with a special request, there is a cost associated with it. There is rarely a plan to integrate these pet projects into the greater vision of the city, rather only to move it forward under the radar of the budgetary process. This can only lead to an unequal footing with individual members of the council and mayor. In short a good manager should say just say “no”.

My vote to terminate Mr. Oliver’s contract was cast after repeated attempts to counsel him about engaging in political manipulation, only to be asked to participate in the Machiavellian games. While these tactics are not illegal, they do damage to the character and fabric of the organization.

Bullying and intimidation are tactical choices, but they are not healthy strategies to achieve a goal. The health of our city, our residents and our employees heavily lies in the hands of a city manager who focuses on the people and the long-term needs of a community. Unfortunately, Mr. Oliver was not the right person for the job moving forward.

Oliver had a response to that in The Arizona Republic:

Oliver, in an e-mail to The Republic, stated that he had a choice to have his employment discussed in public or behind closed doors in executive session. He chose a public forum.

“It was my decision to have the discussion last week about my tenure in Surprise held publicly as I had nothing to hide and believe in transparency,” he wrote. “Some council members, however, now believe they must defend their actions. The proper time was during that public form when a free exchange could occur.”

He added: “I have always treated all council members equally with all getting the same information at the same time. The council needs to determine how they best work together as a cohesive unit and determine their individual roles to move the city forward. I wish them well in this endeavor.”

It should be noted that the Surprise city council voted 4-3 to terminate Oliver, showing that the council was clearly divided. Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt was quoted in the same article criticizing Wolcott’s letter, saying her complaints against Oliver are too vague, and that the press is the wrong place to make her accusations.

Also of interest, it appears that Oliver never signed his severance deal. He was fired March 25, and hadn’t signed the deal by April 21, so at the April 22 Surprise City Council meeting, the council gave the interim city manager authorization to execute the severance agreement without Oliver signing off on it.