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:
- Interim assignment shall be for four to six months, but that may be extended by mutual agreement if necessary.
- He will get 15 days of paid leave to use during his interim assignment, with three additional days added for each month he is asked to serve past August (in other words, if they haven’t found a permanent city manager and his interim assignment is extended).
- Holling won’t participate in the city’s health insurance program, nor will he be eligible for any city benefits other than those outlined in the agreement.
- He has to continue residing in the City of Peoria during his interim assignment.
- I’ll quote this verbatim and without comment: “The CITY shall pay to HENRY HOLLING a car allowance of $300.00 per month, for all periods during which he has a valid driver’s license.”
- The city may terminate Holling at any time (for instance, if a permanent city manager is hired before his four to six months is up).
- The agreement is subject to Holling’s “successful completion and passage of a pre-employment physical, including drug and alcohol testing, prior to the initial start date.”
- He can’t engage in outside consulting without council approval.
- As mentioned before, it is stipulated that he will not be considered for the permanent city manager job.
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.”
Excellent summary …. I’ll leave my comments to this one:
It looks like we elected two independent thinkers last time for Council. Their presence on the council should serve us well in the future.
I’ve done this before, then quietly backtracked. I will now require all commenters to register with a valid ip. Period. Enough is enough.
interesting
Wow. What an absolute crock.
I’ve lost a lot of respect for those 9 that voted yes and I’ve gained a lot of respect for Spain and Montelongo.
Mazr, just to show there’s always two perspectives on things, chew on this, perhaps, just perhaps, as a result of their relative inexperience, is it possible that Spain and Montelongo were manipulated by the anti-Holling factions into opposing his selection, while the remainder of the Council and the Mayor recognized the alterior motives of the anti-Holling factions and rebuked their petty yet viscious tactics. I say it is possible, it is possible.
His sentencing for a DUI is today. Whatever else he may or may not have done isn’t even relevant. The DUI is more than enough reason to pass on his hiring. This isn’t some random peon that they are hiring, he is going to be the leader of the entire city staff. Less than 4 months ago he made a huge error in judgement that could have resulted in someone’s death. I have no tolerance for people who can’t even be bothered to call a cab.
Can someone please explain what the heck Ileriert just said? Is it possible that the “anti-Holling factions” are the same “factions” who oppose the way city govt. has brought Peoria to its knees over the last 20 years? Apparently being a former CAT exec qualifies you for godhood in these here parts. I have had enough of these omniscient ‘community leaders.’ Everyone is busy pointing the finger at Gordon, yet the Peo Council hires Holling and his ‘record’ without thinking twice. What the hell is going on in Peoria?
Yes, Gary Sandberg is notorious for groveling at the feet of Caterpillar.
End sarcasm.
What do you think of the mayor chewing out the bogging community for talking about their choice of city manager?
I guess free speech doesn’t play in Peoria.
I like these sites more and more. Finally a place to find out what really is going on in this town.
of course I meant “blogging community”
Once again my tendency to disregard pretty much any comment made by an anonymous poster has served me well in evaluating and forming an opinion of this whole affair. I would be patting myself on the back right now but I can’t reach that far.
Yes, Beancounter, the very recent DUI should have been enough. And, no, they don’t like free speech. Finally, if anonymous posters should be dismissed out of hand, then tell me why CrimeStoppers has been so successful? The Police will tell you that many, many crimes are solved by anonymous tipsters. It also assumes that people will not openly lie. Ya, right. “I never had **** with that woman.” And now we have the spectacle of McCain lying to Romney’s face about his record. I don’t even know what the Holling rumors were, but if they were false, why didn’t Holling specifically deny them? Did he even apologize for the DUI? Not that that makes everthing right. I think that whatever small amount of respect the citizenry had for the city has got to be pretty much gone after this episode. What a disgrace.
Peoriafan: Ardis was specific in his chastisement. He wasn’t saying that people aren’t allowed to voice their opinions, but that libel by anonymous commentators was unfair. Upon rereading my coverage, I can see that I didn’t do his comments justice. WEEK-TV reported this quote from the council meeting:
All: Believe me, if Sandberg and Manning and others could have found any evidence of the things Holling has been accused of on this and other blogs, I’m confident they would not have voted for him for interim city manager. But honestly, do you expect elected officials to base their decisions on hearsay and innuendo from anonymous commentators on blogs?
I’ve been the target of a smear campaign (some have falsely accused me of being paid off by Pioneer regarding the Kellar Branch issue), and it’s maddening. You know it’s not true, you know the people making the allegations have no proof because it never happened, and yet it keeps getting whispered around as if it is true. I actually had to ban one person from my blog because of it. Partially because of that experience (and because it’s just the right thing to do), I’m not going to believe something as serious as what’s been posted (and deleted) here without some solid proof.
Now, if you want to say that you think so and so is a jerk and you hate him and you think the council is stupid, etc., etc., go right ahead. If you want to point to things that are part of the public record, like a DUI arrest, that’s fair game. I won’t censor you, and the council and mayor won’t have any quarrel with your right to say it, either.
But if you’re going to allege that a person has committed serious crimes, you’d better have proof or it’s not getting published on my blog. Besides the fact that I don’t want to even tacitly participate in a character assassination, I could get sued for libel. Granted, many people have assured me that courts would likely not hold me liable for something an anonymous commentator said on my blog, but I’d just as soon not be the test case on that, thank you very much. I can’t afford the legal bills or disruption to my life, even if I could win in the end.
C.J. is correct.
However, Vespa [who has probably been the target of several blog comments in the past]is way out of line.
Much of the criticism against anonymous blogs is valid. Many blogs (anonymous or not) are ridiculous. The amount of idiocy expressed on some blogs is shocking.
Of course mainstream journalists also screw things up. Mainstream journalists can be complicit in lying to the public and abusing their credibility (real or manufactured).
Instead of launching into a treatise into the value of anonymous free speech, I will quote the US Supreme Court, which sums up my position on this topic quite succinctly:
“…anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
In many cases the “tyranny” comes from the workplace, the press, etc. Do you think CURRENT CAT employees write editorials in the Star complaining about poor health care, that ridiculous museum, etc? NO! Retribution against those who speak out is a major concern.
Maybe Vespa needs to look into this!
I have no doubt that the credibility of anonymous sources (including this blog) is lower than those where the names of the authors are known. This is how it should be, and the average person is smart enough to realize that anonymous sources should be treated with caution, and scrutinized more carefully. However, this does not justify a campaign to discourage anonymous free speech [blogging].
Thank you for your time,
New Voice
[not my real name…..so there!]
well said, New Voice, well said.
Had to laugh at the contract term they negotiated regarding car allowance. Given the circumstances and the reality of that issue (even if it’s a non-issue for job performance) — why did they include that?
Why not just leave it out completely or add in the extra money into the base monthly rate? Who would have cared or noticed. All it did was, in my opinion, draw more attention to the issue.
I don’t disagree with New Voice. I’ll defend the right of people to comment anonymously for the very reasons you mentioned. I just won’t defend an anonymous commentator from libeling someone. That’s the difference.
The fear of retribution / retaliation is evident in this community. Think back to the Rec Plex petition drive. There were many people who at least said that they were against it who would not sign the petition because of their fear of retaliation from CAT and/or OSF. They did not want to put their employment in any jeopardy. Whether their fear was real or only a perception — it was their reality and so they were unwilling to sign. This is a repeated cycle on many issues in our community.
New Voice, you make some good points. There is not one among us who has not been tempted to anonymously post. However, if you succumb to the urge, you should be prepared to have your input greatly discounted. So if you feel very strongly for/against something, you should have the cahuna’s to state your case and be prepared to make a strong defense of that case. If you can’t, its better left unsaid. Afterall, The TRUTH is a defense.
Further, posters, anonymous or otherwise, should proceed cautiously in repeating hearsay – especially if it can inflict significant harm on another. In our society it seems the Golden Rule is slowly falling by the wayside. Follow it, or be prepared for the Kharma affect.
Diane,
“cahuna’s?” Listening to your condescending BS is hardley the same as having my case “greatly discounted!” Besides, the ONLY time I hear people like you or the mayor, etc complain about anonymous bloggers is when the TRUTH, as you put it, HURTS. Speaking of cahuna’s, have YOU ever done anything risky enough to loose YOUR job over?
I know nothing about Mr. Hollings so the truth, whatever it may be, won’t hurt me one way or the other. And your hostility serves only to reinforce the case against anonymity. Although, I do have one further thought. There is a lot of talk about Cat squashing dissenting opinion. Does anyone have any evidence of this? Have families come forward and said that their career or family has been harmed because they have publicly disagreed with Cat. Does Cat really only want Stepford-like employees? Are these claims factual or more here-say. I’m just curious.
I’ll just say that anyone who doesn’t think there is more to this than a DUI is wrong.
Somehow a number of people have incorrect information regarding Holling…….
I wonder if the interested parties legally aren’t permitted to comment on Henry’s past?
And Sandberg’s reply comparing this to WMD’s?
Is he really serious?
Politics as usual in the River City…..
Interesting on the vote. Leaves room for a motion to reconsider does it not?
has anyone considered who the other applicants may have been and how they compared with Mr. Holling and whether or not he was the most qualified for the position? Give the council credit, you can be he was grilled extensively and checked out considerably.
It is disgraceful that the mayor and some counssel people can influence opinions on the blog. According to Ardis it will be the fault of the blogs if they can’t find a new city manager. Then Jacobs is mad at Summers for some items on the blogs and those items disappear. This has nothing to do with libel and everything to do with free speech. Maybe these guys will lose their cushy little seats during meetings at the staff table if they don’t fall into line.
Shame on all of you. I will take my opinions and facts elsewhere! If there is trouble getting a manager it will be the the PJStar news stories over the last couple of decades that will do them in.
Ned, why don’t you start your own blog. Then you can libel allyou want.
silence
Ned said:
What are you talking about? Jacob was not and is not mad at me to my knowledge. And the only things that have disappeared from this blog are libelous statements. I’ve left the rest of the comments intact. You can tell exactly where statements were excised because I put “Portion removed by blog owner” in their place. Furthermore, the libel was removed at my discretion, long before Jacob said anything at the council meeting or talked to me.
And, for the record, no one on the council has changed my mind about Holling. I still think he was a poor choice by the council. He doesn’t have the municipal experience, he has a DUI that will cause him to be without a license for three months, and he won’t have the respect or frankly the mobility to do his job well, in my opinion. I think they could have gotten someone better. That said, at least it’s only an interim position. Hopefully they will make a better choice for the permanent city manager.
Now, if you want to “take [your] opinions and facts elsewhere,” go right ahead. You won’t hurt my feelings.
It is absolutely true that one of the drawbacks of the new electronic media that it’s easier for the ill-informed and ill-willed to spread their venom.
It’s also easier for those of us who want to increase the body of knowledge and to provide a forum for commentary and dissent to do so as well.
As is usually the case, the cure for the former is more of the latter.
And I agree with “Ned.” If you want to spread your wisdom, get a blog. It’s free.
I think that [Ned] is really Diane Vespa.
So…. how about them Giants?
Did someone mention squashing dissent? When I ran for PPD President, a leading caterer in Peoria allowed me to put up two of my signs in front of his business on Pioneer Parkway. When I drove by two days later, the signs were gone. I asked the businessman what happened and he said he was told by someone high up in the PPD to take them down if he wanted to do anymore business with the Peoria Park District. He was reluctant to give me the name of the person who called but the person was so important that the caterer had to reached in Chicago because the park official wanted them down right now.
I asked if I could have my signs back and he walked with me to behind his building where they were placed.
They were gone.
Hmmmmmm.
Wha? This thread has lost me.
yes, Merle’s right, squashing dissent is a time-honored tradition in Peoria. The person who made that call probably should have been charged, but it’s Peoria. That said, Holling is now the CM. Let’s give him a chance and see how he does.
” There is a lot of talk about Cat squashing dissenting opinion. Does anyone have any evidence of this? Have families come forward and said that their career or family has been harmed because they have publicly disagreed with Cat. Does Cat really only want Stepford-like employees? Are these claims factual or more here-say. I’m just curious.”
These people did come forward with the truth but now they are all “missing”??
Maybe with Hoffa.
Cat squashing dissent? Mm that really isn’t the right frame of reference. Many companies have policies of strictly not commenting on why people depart from jobs. Those policies usually involve losing your job if you don’t keep your mouth shut. It isn’t so much a problem with dissent but rather protecting the company from legal liability.
A company I worked for once in a management, now called Yum!, had a strict policy. You could confirm whether someone worked for you or not. You could verify dates of employment. You could verify job title. That was pretty much it. Was he a good employee? No comment. Did he receive raises? No comment. Did he resign or was he fired? No comment. Could I (the employee) get a reference letter so that I can get into business school? Can’t do that. There is no point in putting that former employer down as a reference because there really is not much they can say. If I violated that as a manager, my job was lost.
It isn’t just the bad employees that can be a risk. It can be the good employees too. If your reference wasn’t glowing enough to land someone a new job, you can be sued. So the company I worked for made a policy that simply said, more or less, no references.
Now does Cat have that sort of policy? You will have to ask them. From the people I have talked to, Cat staff cannot discuss the situation whether it is good or bad, and that is where it is left at. Does that mean someone could lose their job if they talked? I have no idea.
Typically verification of employment is limited to dates of employment and job titles. Release of information regarding an employee’s performance to a third party would only occur if the employee or former employee signed a release authorizing the company to do so. Even with a release, many companies make it a standard practice not to share such information. This is particularly true, if an employee left under a “cloud” and the parties agreed to keep the matter confidential in exchange for the employee departing quietly.
Why Holling “retired” from CAT is irrelevant. His recent DUI conviction was sufficient to reject him for the job. It places the City in a precarious position in terms of reprimanding other City employees for the same or similar conduct when it is deemed o.k. by the Council for the Interim City Manager to behave in such a manner.
It makes us look pretty desperate as a community that we could not find another individual to assume this temporary job. I can think of any number of “retired” leaders with much more relevant experience that could have been considered. I am sure you other bloggers would be able to easily formulate your short lists as well.
But what’s done is done. I would certainly hope that Henry’s temporary job with the City does not become a permanent one by stepping into the vacant City HR job. The HR Manager is far too important a job to the City and its’ taxpayers and should be filled through an unbiased search of all qualified candidates.
Mahnko said “Many companies have policies of strictly not commenting on why people depart from jobs. Those policies usually involve losing your job if you don’t keep your mouth shut. It isn’t so much a problem with dissent but rather protecting the company from legal liability.”
This sounds reasonable. So if assuming that what Mahnko said is true, would it be a correct leap of logic to conclude that those Cat employees that conduct these “whisper campaigns” in fact fear for their jobs because they are violating the company policy they subscribed to, and not necessarily because they would then become the target of some vengeful and arbitrary retaliation by Caterpillar Management?
(Do NOT attempt to diagram that sentence! Lol)
Many employees are intimidated into keeping their mouths closed due to direct threats or innuendos. If these people would speak up this bullying would stop and the truth would come out. Ethics demands honesty and integrity whether you are a street sweeper or a CAT exec.
People should fear tyranny and dishonesty. Whistle blowers are the hero’s, remember that.