From the Journal Star:
Peoria County Judge Rebecca Steenrod sentenced [Henry] Holling to one year of court supervision, 100 hours of public service and a three month suspension of his driver’s license starting March 9. He must also pay $2,200 courts fees and fines before Wednesday. It is Holling’s first DUI.
Holling was just hired as the interim city manager for the City of Peoria last night.
I just got this alert from the city:
Waste Management is suspending residential garbage pickup for today. They will resume picking up the Friday routes on Saturday, February 2nd.
The Peoria City Council met in special session tonight to name former Caterpillar executive Henry Holling the interim city manager. He is scheduled to start work Feb. 3, but will not assume the duties of interim city manager until the close of business on Feb. 15, which is Randy Oliver’s last day. He will be paid $10,860 per month for an anticipated four to six months while the council looks for a new permanent city manager. Per Holling’s contract, he is not a candidate for the permanent city manager position.
Holling’s appointment passed the council on a 9-2 vote. Councilmen Spain and Montelongo were the only “nay” votes.
Councilman Bob Manning (3rd District) made the motion to hire Holling, seconded by Councilman Eric Turner (At-Large). Manning explained that department heads Craig Hullinger and Pat Landes were not considered for the job because they “have too much on their plates at this time” and to have either one of them serve as the interim city manager would “paralyze that department” while they were away.
Councilman Gary Sandberg (At-Large) was perhaps the most surprising “yea” vote. Holling has said some pretty unflattering things about Sandberg in the past and has actively raised money for candidates to defeat Sandberg at the polls. Sandberg’s response was that “we shouldn’t be afraid of people we might not always agree with.” He said that Holling loves the community and is “the right person for the next four to six months.”
Council Member Barbara Van Auken (2nd District) echoed Manning and Sandberg’s sentiments, saying that the council was looking for someone with executive experience, community involvement, and “if we’re lucky,” government experience.
Mayor Jim Ardis said that if everyone were to look at Holling’s resume without a name on it, and without the rumor and innuendo that has been spread in the community, everyone would have jumped at the chance to hire him.
Montelongo did not speak during the meeting, but afterwards told the press when asked that the reason he didn’t vote for Holling was because he didn’t feel Holling had enough experience with municipal management. Spain left very quickly, so no one was able to catch him for his comments.
Anonymous commentators rebuked
I’ve left something out of the comments I’ve reported so far. That is that almost all of them had something to say about the anonymous commentators that have been writing on this and other blogs and forums. Manning mentioned that there was no truth to the rumors that have been bandied about in the blogs he talked to several people he trusts “who have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Holling on a number of different levels and in different environments” and they all said that “he has the experience and skills to do an outstanding job as interim City Manager.” He added, “I give a lot of weight and credence to the opinions of those I contacted and absolutely none to whisper campaigns, anonymous bloggers and phantom letter writers.”
Sandberg likened the rumors about Holling to the weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be in Iraq. “There’s no meat on the bone,” he said, referring to the allegations. If they were true, “Cat would have dealt with it long ago.”
Mayor Ardis said that it’s hard to get people who are willing to serve in a public capacity because of the kind of treatment they get in the “electronic media.” Whisper campaigns discourage good candidates from applying or being willing to serve.
Councilman George Jacob (At-Large) asked City Attorney Randy Ray if the code of conduct for commissioners extends to any comments they may make on “electronic media,” like blogs, anonymous or otherwise. Mr. Ray said that it does, assuming their identity can be ascertained. I asked Jacob afterwards why he asked that question. Apparently there is some concern that there may be a commissioner or commissioners who are making defamatory allegations on blogs under a pseudonym.
The contract
I will post a copy of the contract soon. In the meantime, here are the salient provisions:
After I got home, there was this message waiting for me in my in-box: “Interim City Manager Henry Holling will be holding a news conference on February 1, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. The news conference will be held in City Council Chambers.”
You can read a copy of Mayor Ardis’s “State of the City” address by downloading a PDF copy of it from the city’s website.
I don’t know Henry Holling. All I know is what I read in the papers. And there’s a doozy of an article in the paper today.
It’s been previously reported that Holling is being considered for interim city manager after Randy Oliver leaves on February 15. It has also been reported that Holling was convicted of a DUI just recently — so recent, we find out today, that he hasn’t even been sentenced yet. That will happen this Friday. The city council has called a special meeting to possibly appoint him interim city manager this Thursday, Jan. 31.
On top of that, the paper says he’s given money to three council members’ campaigns: Eric Turner ($700), George Jacob ($750), and Bill Spears ($250). The Illinois City/County Management Association (ILCMA), as mentioned in a sidebar to the article, has a tenet against this in their ethics code. It reads:
Tenet 7. Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body.
What was not in the paper was any discussion of rumors regarding why he retired from Caterpillar when he did. Every journalist I’ve talked to has been unable to substantiate those rumors, which is why you don’t hear them on the radio or read them in the paper, and it’s why I don’t allow them on my blog.
So, what are we to make of all this?
First of all, I don’t think decisions can be made based on rumors. So in the same way rumors won’t be published, I don’t think rumors can be used as a basis for hiring or not hiring someone. I know that it happens sometimes, but that doesn’t make it right. It’s not good policy to make decisions on anything but verifiable facts.
Secondly, it is a fact that Holling contributed to some council members’ campaigns. But ask yourself honestly, do you really think that $250-$750 is enough to say to a council member, “you owe me”? Does anyone think that George Jacob is wowed by a contributor who gave him all of $750 of the $55,000+ in funds he had available for his campaign? I’m not buying the “payback” angle. If any of these council members are supporting Holling, it’s not because of his campaign contributions.
I also don’t think Holling is violating any ILCMA tenets. He gave this money long before anyone knew that Randy Oliver was leaving or that there would be a need for an interim city manager. I don’t think you can retroactively hold someone to an ethical standard like that.
Finally, there’s the DUI. That’s a matter of public record. He will likely have his license suspended on Friday. And it’s on this point that I have a problem with Holling being selected.
To be a good manager, you have to have respect. You need the respect of your employees and your bosses. A city manager — even an interim one — also needs the respect of the citizens he’s hired to serve and the outside agencies, both public and private, with which he needs to interact. Holling is not going to have that respect precisely because he’s currently under the cloud of this DUI. Since it’s an interim position, he has no time to (re)build respect before he’ll be replaced with a permanent city manager.
Furthermore, his mobility will be limited. City Attorney Randy Ray is quoted in the paper as saying that a drivers license is not required for this job position. But Randy Oliver was provided a car allowance of $500 per month per his contract. One would assume that means he needed to do no small amount of driving as part of his job. How will Holling get to and from work? The bus? How will he get around the city to do his job? Is the city going to assign him a driver?
Perhaps when one looks at Holling’s entire career, the DUI is just a single bad judgment, and we all make bad judgments at times. But the timing of this is most significant. How are the citizens of Peoria supposed to have any confidence in this choice, especially when a better candidate is waiting in the wings?
The city should reject Holling and instead appoint Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger as the interim city manager.
There was a big flap last November when the Zoning Commission (and subsequently the City Council) undercut the new Land Development Code (LDC) for the Heart of Peoria Plan area by approving a special use request from St. Ann’s Church against city staff’s recommendation. Staff had recommended that the architecture of the proposed building be modified to make it consistent with the intent of the LDC and, ultimately, compatible with the residential area surrounding it.
The whole situation betrayed a lack of understanding on the part of many commissioners and council members as to how the LDC works. There was confusion about exactly how to make decisions regarding zoning requests based on the code. So, as a direct result of that situation, the Planning and Growth Management Department, at the Mayor’s direction, put together a training session to help commissioners and council members gain a better understanding. They brought up Lee Einsweiler from Code Studio in Texas to give a refresher course and answer questions about recent controversial decisions. Lee was part of the team that wrote the LDC, and thus is an invaluable resource on how to use and interpret the code.
The training took place this past Saturday, January 26, from 8:30 a.m. until about 2:00 p.m. at the RiverWest Frank Campbell Community Center. The City Council and Zoning Commission were invited, along with the Planning Commission, Heart of Peoria Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, et. al. It was nice that it was opened up to everyone because it allows us all to get on the same page, is it were, regarding the code.
However, the main reason the meeting was set up was to educate the Zoning Commission and the City Council. So, who showed up from those two bodies? From the City Council: Mayor Ardis, Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken, Third District Councilman Bob Manning, and At-Large Councilmen Gary Sandberg and Ryan Spain. From the Zoning Commission: Mike Wiesehan and Marjorie Klise. That’s it. Five out of 11 council members, and two out of seven zoning commissioners.
Who wasn’t there? From the City Council: First District Councilman Clyde Gulley (whose entire district is under the LDC), Fourth District Councilman Bill Spears, Fifth District Councilman Pat Nichting, and At-Large Councilmen Eric Turner, Jim Montelongo, and George Jacob. Jacob in particular has been asking a lot of questions lately about the LDC, especially regarding porches and accessory structures, but he regrettably couldn’t make it to the training where he could have gotten those questions answered (he was out of town for his son’s hockey game). From the Zoning Commission: Greg Hunziker (chairman), Rich Unes (who said during the St. Ann’s discussion, “I don’t think we have the authority to tell them how to build their building”), Curt Davis, Tim Shea, and Mark Misselhorn. Shea and Misselhorn were appointed to Zoning Dec. 17 — after the St. Ann’s situation. Misselhorn was out of town on Saturday, but he’s also on the Heart of Peoria Commission and is already well-versed in the LDC.
It’s bothersome to me that so many people missed this training session. It was important. It was necessary. It was brought in specifically for the Zoning Commission and City Council. And yet look at the attendance. If this were just a one-time deal, that would be one thing. But there are some zoning commissioners who haven’t attended any of the consultant-selection meetings, the subsequent charrettes, or the all-committee training sessions. If commissioners are not available and/or willing to educate themselves on new zoning regulations, why are they on the commission? How can they adequately fulfill their duties? If council members don’t understand the LDC and don’t take advantage of training opportunities, how can they make informed votes on the council floor?
I want to commend those council members and zoning commissioners who made this training a priority. Hopefully those who didn’t attend will defer to these more informed members when questions regarding the LDC come up in the future.
From a news release:
HELP PLAN PEORIA WEBPAGE AND ONLINE SURVEY
The City of Peoria is launching the second phase of public participation in the Comprehensive Plan process with the launch of the www.planpeoria.com web page and online survey.
The Comprehensive Plan serves two major functions for a community. First, it sets an overall vision for the growth and development of the community over the next ten to twenty years. Second, it establishes the legal basis for a zoning ordinance and for development control over a one and one half mile area outside of the current city limits. In some communities it is called the “master plan,” and as such, guides the development and implementation of all other plans.
The www.planpeoria.com web page provides background data on various demographic changes in Peoria over the past thirty years, copies of the public input already received at the Topic Area Workshops held in 2007, and access to an online survey.
The online survey is the core of the web page; it is designed to allow the public to determine which of the goals created at the Topic Area Workshops are of greatest importance to the future of Peoria. Wide participation in the survey will greatly assist the Planning Commission and City Planning Department staff in the development of a final draft plan. The public is encouraged to take 15 minutes to help us plan for the next 15 years.
Paper copies of the survey will also be made available in the Planning Department offices or by calling the City Planning Department at 494-8600.
For further information on the Comprehensive Plan process, the www.planpeoria.com web page, or the online survey, please contact Ross Black, Assistant Planning Director at 494-8601 or rblack@ci.peoria.il.us
Escambia County, Florida, commissioners have decided on their first choice for a new County Administrator. It’s not Randy Oliver, who was a finalist. He came in second, according to the Pensacola News Journal.
Hat tip: Peo Proud
Jonathan Ahl has the inside scoop:
WCBU News is reporting this afternoon that Henry Holling, a retired Caterpillar executive, is still the choice for interim city manager. A committee of council members along with City Attorney Randy Ray are hammering out the final details. Sources say at least three council members voiced concerns about Holling.
You can read more details at Jonathan’s blog.
On Friday, Oct. 26, 2007, Mr. Holling was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after he crashed his car into a light pole near W. Giles Lane about 8:55 p.m., according to a Journal Star report on Oct. 30. Holling retired from Caterpillar on June 1, 2007. When he retired, he was the “manager of social responsibility initiatives.”
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.