The city’s Fleet Services Manager is retiring, and the city apparently has no succession plan to replace him. As I reported earlier, city staff took steps toward outsourcing the management position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.
That plan went over like a lead balloon with Fleet Services personnel. They wrote a letter to Mayor Ardis advocating “an alternative plan…in which Tom Satterfield [a current Fleet Services union employee] would be made a super crew chief in which there would be a percentage added to his base pay.” The letter didn’t sway the mayor, but it did sway 7 of the 11 council members last Tuesday night. They voted to hire Satterfield. In addition to Ardis, those voting against that solution were Jacob, Spain, and Turner.
The back story, of course, is that there is still an open question as to whether or not the whole department will be outsourced. No doubt the personnel in the Fleet Services department saw the “temporary” outsourcing of the manager position as a step toward that outcome, and that’s why they reacted so negatively to the idea. That, and the fact that Satterfield was essentially the second in command anyway — the one who usually filled in when the Fleet Manager was away.
In the end, I believe the council made the right decision. It will save the city money, and it’s only temporary. No need to outsource what we can do ourselves in-house for less money.
If Satterfield doesn’t want the job on a permanent basis because of the residency requirement, and he is the “second-in-command”, what succession plan would you suggest the city have?
Well, was the fleet manager’s retirement a surprise? It would seem to me that they could have hired a new manager in anticipation of his retirement and he could have trained the new guy before he left.
I’m not sure what the order of events were, but I believe I heard say at a Council meeting that they wanted to let the new public works director hire the fleet manager. And “hiring a new manager in anticipation of his retirement” isn’t really “succession planning.” That phrase seems to imply the plan for making replacements internally (ie how you groom subordinates). This city is going to have a real problem in the coming years as its older staff retire because many of the younger (and experienced) staff don’t want to 1) move into the city or 2) have to put up with being management for this council. Even the mayor at Tuesday’s meeting made a comment about the number of employees who wouldn’t take promotions because they didn’t want to move into the city. I’m all for the residency requirement, but it will have an effect.