Daily Archives: January 23, 2008

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

Sangamon Schock endorsement weak

3 Comments

Monday’s Word on the Street column mentioned that Aaron Schock got the endorsement of the Sangamon County GOP. Do you know why he got the nomination of the Sangamon County GOP? According to State Journal-Register reporter Bernard Schoenburg, a big reason is simply because he’s the perceived front-runner:

“I guess one of the things you have to take into account is that all of the polls that we have looked at and studied indicate that he … is in the lead and will probably win the nomination,” [Sangamon County GOP leader Tony] Libri said.

“It was a tough decision, because I’ve got to tell you, I like the other two candidates very much.”

I wonder what polls they looked at — Schock’s own poll numbers that he released, or an independent poll. I’m not aware of any independent polls having been conducted in this primary contest. Did Sangamon County conduct their own poll? I think mere front-runner status is a dubious criterion for endorsement.

It’s worth noting that the endorsement isn’t especially strong, either. They like the other two candidates just as well, apparently:

He also noted that, similar to the presidential endorsement, he’s not insisting that all loyal party members toe the party line in the race for the 18th … “If one of our precinct committeemen or if some of our members feel strongly about this and want to go with somebody else, we will honor that,” Libri said.

Good. I’m glad to know I have the Sangamon County GOP’s blessing to vote against Schock if I wish.

Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission

PBC bonding authority raised due to annexations

4 Comments

In an earlier post, I asked how the Public Building Commission’s bonding authority went from $60 million to $72 million in a short time. Journal Star reporter Dave Haney has the answer:

The $72 million request would essentially put the PBC at the limit of its bonding authority, beyond the $60 million limit previously reported. The PBC has since retired some debt as well as gained more bonding authority through the city annexing more property – the basis by which the PBC’s bonding authority grows, allowing up to five percent of the city’s assessed value.

Another hidden cost of annexation to the taxpayer.

City of Peoria

Oliver’s contract points to technical termination

5 Comments

There’s been a lot of speculation on whether Randy Oliver was fired or resigned voluntarily. Oliver and the council say he resigned voluntarily, but it has been reported that he will be receiving a severance package — something usually reserved for the terminated. I obtained a copy of Oliver’s employment contract via a Freedom of Information Act request so we can all read it and draw our own conclusions.

One would think that there are only two options: “terminated” and “voluntarily resigned.” But in fact there’s a third option (from Section 3(C) of the contract):

In the event the City Council at any time reduces the salary, compensation or other benefits of the City Manager in a greater amount than an applicable across-the-board reduction for all employees of the City, or in the event the City Council fails to comply with any other provision of this Employment Agreement, or if the Employee resigns following a suggestion by a majority of the Council, then, in that event, Employee may, at his/her option, be deemed to be “terminated” at the date of such reduction, such refusal to comply, or such resignation within the meaning and context of the herein severance pay provision then in that event Employee may at his/her option, be deemed to be terminated, as provided herein.

The third option is, in a nutshell, “as if terminated.” Since, according to the contract, the City Manager has to either be terminated or “as if terminated” in order to be eligible to get severance pay, and since everyone denies that he was terminated by the council, that leaves us with option 3, “as if terminated,” as the only viable explanation. To further substantiate this conclusion, consider this provision in the contract from Section 3(F): “If the City Manager resigns voluntarily, he will provide a sixty (60) days’ notice to the City Council.” Oliver provided only 30 days’ notice.

Something evidently happened to trigger the “as if terminated” clause (as I call it). What was it? Was it that he was not going to be getting a raise, and that could be construed as a reduction of “salary, compensation or other benefits”? Or did the council take a no-confidence vote, which would be “a suggestion by a majority of the council”?

Whatever it was, it’s worth asking why this clause is even in the contract at all. Gary Sandberg said on WCBU’s “Outside the Horseshoe” program Tuesday that he voted against this contract precisely because of the termination section, which he thought was not in the best interests of the city. According to Sandberg, Oliver wrote up this contract, and the council at the time voted for it because they were desperate for a new city manager.

On the other hand, if the council really is dissatisfied with the city manager and asks him to resign or starts taking away salary and benefits in an effort to pressure him to resign, how is that appreciably different than terminating him? And why shouldn’t he get a severance package in such a case? It could be argued that this is nothing more than protection for the city manager from getting forced out without severance.