Anyone in Peoria’s third district who read the Pekin Times’ or Peoria Journal Star’s story on Daryl Dagit’s resignation from the Pekin City Council may have had a sinking feeling in their stomach:
During [Monday’s council] meeting, Dagit explained the reason for his leaving. He is leaving his position at CitiFinancial, he said, and is moving to Smith Barney to work as a financial advisor. The two companies are both members of the financial services company Citigroup.
Dagit said Smith Barney policy mandates that employees not hold an elected position.
To some extent, that’s understandable. Smith Barney is a huge company, and they do bond underwriting. Municipalities issue bonds, of course, and if Smith Barney wants to underwrite those bonds, they may not be able to if one of their employees is on the council for that municipality — it would be a conflict of interest, and thus, the company loses the opportunity to gain that business.
But what does all that have to do with Peoria? Well, we have a councilman who works at the same company: Bob Manning. But don’t worry, he won’t be resigning.
I had the opportunity to talk to Bob about the situation. He explained that his circumstances are different from Dagit’s. Manning worked for the company first, got approval to run for office, then got on the council. Dagit was already on the council, then was offered a position, and giving up his council seat was a condition of employment. Dagit could have turned down the job offer and kept his seat.
Bottom line, Manning will continue to serve the residents of Peoria’s third district. And that’s good news for not only the third district, but all of Peoria.
Thank you for clearing this up. When I read the paper about Mr. Dagit I was concerned we might have to give up Bob. Bob Manning has done wonderful things for our district and I am sure he will continue to in the future.
Not sure I understand the difference – or the distinction in the two situations. Whether one was already employed or not the impact on the firm would be the same, wouldn’t it? Why approve one and not the other? I’d think that Peoria has the potential to be a much larger source of business for Smith Barney then Pekin. Seems like there must be more to the story.
Well, my guess is that if, hypothetically, Manning weren’t on the council now and asked for approval to run, they wouldn’t let him. Since the time he got permission, the rules have changed, it appears. They’re not going to renege on the approval they gave Bob, but they’re also not going to give anyone approval from now on. He’s “grandfathered in,” as it were.
OK – that makes sense. So then the question is, will they let him run again?
Smith Barney would be doing a huge disservice to the city if they did not let Bob Manning run again. He has been a great asset to both the East Bluff and the City Council.
Bob Manning is one of the best things to happen to the East Bluff.
In My World and Hula Monkey – I agree; he’s been a great addition to the Council. He’s got a more realistic and factual based approach that’s missing from many members of the horseshoe – including some who have served more than one term. I just wonder how their “new policy” (if it is new) will be applied.
Peo Proud: it seems barney would have to let him run again since he is “grandfathered” in with them; if they would try to pressure him to run, and he wanted to, I think they would lose him to a competitor. Of course, all them dedpends if Dagit is telling the truth about his relationship with Smith Barney (it doesn’t make a lot of sense).
Typo error above: should read “all of that depends”- sorry
I would suggest that is Smith Barney wants to deprive Peoria of Bob Manning in 2009, than Peorians ought to look elsewhere for financial services. Just my two cents.
Billy: Your two cents is worth a dollar in gold; the Third District hasn’t had the kind of representation Manning gives them EVER! And it’s not just the Glen Oak or Knolls area, it’s everywhere.