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.
I just have a problem with the DUI. I understand that “bad things happen to good people” and I know myself and lots of other good people that probably just luck out by never getting a DUI but could have over their lifetime. The thing is this just does not look good and what kind of message does it send? I say this is really bad judgement on our councils part. Henry may be a nice guy but pick someone else!
Huh? The Web article I’m looking at says the most is $500 to George Jacob.
As to Tenet &, it doesn’t apply because Holling wasn’t a city manager at the time he made the donations, but an employee of Caterpillar. One assumes he’s going to keep his checkbook closed if he’s hired.
Billy:
1/22/07 $500
4/17/07 $250
Total: $750
As for Tenet 7, that’s exactly my point. You can’t retroactively apply that rule to Holling when he wasn’t even a city manager at the time he made the donations.
Your logic is flawless. Craig Hullinger is a fine person and would represent the city well during the CM search. I think the citizen’s should email their council person and weigh in on this important decision. How can we get anybody credible after they look at our newspaper’s account of the council’s choice for interim. How can we follow a professional city manager with a questionable candidate who is awaiting sentencing on a DUI. What will Holling do if an employee gets a DUI? Peoria is it’s own worst enemy and if folks don’t believe prospective employee’s go through the local paper with a fine tooth comb they are dreaming.
What are the impacts on Hullinger’s economic development responsibilities if he were to wear the interim city manager hat too?
Who else is available, with presumably management experience who would be willing to fill this interim position?
Ann: You are correct — taxpayers should email their city council persons with their opinion.
Hullinger has previous experience as a CM in a small city. He has a fine staff and he would be able to keep both balls in the air for 4 or 5 months. Craig is an upfront guy and has strong ethics as the majority of cm’s do, at least the successful ones.
The council seems to be tone deaf on this issue. I not buy the idea that a few contributions to candidates put him up front, patently rididulous. There is a reason and a story there yet to be told.
Here is what I don’t get: The online community in Peoria (blogs, PJS comments, etc.) is a pretty open place. On almost any given issue, you’ll find impassioned commentary from both sides. Hell, even when one thug kills another, there are commenters on the JS website that say “just think about the family” or “you don’t know the whole story.”
But since the news of Oliver’s departure and the almost immediate news of Holling being considered for the interim job, I haven’t seen (or, to be honest, heard) one defense of the man. Even under the cloak of anonymity (or psuedonymity), Holling’s defenders can’t muster a response. Now, I wouldn’t want to defend myself against such statements, but this man admittedly was responsible for a lot of charity in this town. He gave away a lot of (other people’s) money. And yet, no one has offered even one kind word. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as strange?
Council members praised him upand down when he got a proclamation several months ago.
And can you blame people for being silent NOW with all the anonymous attacks going on here.
Billy,
Let’s not be naive. Of course, there are council people who love him — at least 6 of them are going to vote for him! All I’m saying is that the anonymity of blog comments cuts both ways. I just find it odd that not one post has risen to his defense or even said a nice thing about him. Let’s forget the rumors [portion removed by blog owner]. There hasn’t been one voice (other than, presumably some council people) saying why Holling would be a good choice. As an exercise in contrast, look at the posts CJ and you have made about Jehan Gordon — same level of vitriol on the negative side, but at least a smattering of positive support.
“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.”
Ask anyone at and or familiar with the goings-on at Cat and you’ll find out why he “retired” early.
I highly doubt anyone with the city will contact the people and ask the questions that will result in the facts of his “early retirement”.
IMO, the reason he left is looooong past being in the status of “rumor”.
You are correct MAZR. And it is frustrating to see all the bloggers who consider themselves ‘journalists’ who are not even attempting to get to this truth. I suppose it is more about the power of Caterpillar than anything…
Mazr and PeoriaGuy — The city council knows all about the rumors, and one councilman has specifically addressed those concerns with Holling. All he has to do is deny them because no one is apparently brave enough to come forward and accuse him on the record. Another commentator has said, “we make too much money and have too good of benefits to disclose our names.” That’s their prerogative. But if they’re not willing to come forward and testify, don’t blame bloggers for not making second- and third-hand accusations they can’t back up and could get sued for making.
To Sud O. Nym,
I think your statement “but this man admittedly was responsible for a lot of charity in this town” is somewhat deceptive. Henry was not personally responsible for giving CAT shareholder money away- his job was to be the first person a charity would contact when asking for a CAT contribution. CAT has a corporate policy for giving and Henry’s job was to help with the process. I am not sure of Henry’s personal level of giving for area charities. That would reveal more about how philanthropic the Hollings are.
Like CJ, I am concerned about the message the City Council is sending to the citizens of Peoria. When they overlook Henry’s bad judgments and indiscretions they are saying we can pick and choose when to be discerning. The applicants for the Director of Public Works were asked to go through a battery of tests at Bradley. I was told one of the reasons they decided to hire David Barber was because he tested better. Now, I presume they did this because they wanted to learn more about his personality traits. Why slip back to the old pattern of decision making for Henry?
Also of concern to me is that Henry was a manager in 1994 and thirteen years later when he retired he was a still a manager. Not much movement up the corporate ladder even though they had three CEO’s during that period of time (Fites, Barton, and Owens). That tells me that regardless of the leadership at CAT, Henry stayed put. Certainly Henry had plenty of time to show his ability and be promoted within CAT.
It is very understandable that citizens are frustrated with the City Council. They seem satisfied with putting lipstick on a pig in more situations than not.
George
“And it is frustrating to see all the bloggers who consider themselves ‘journalists’ who are not even attempting to get to this truth. I suppose it is more about the power of Caterpillar than anything…”
Peoria Guy, if you only knew the number of hours I have spent working on this over the past few days, you may revise your statement that there are no attempts to verify this information. I know at least two other of my colleagues in the local media have been doing the same. All I can get is people telling me “what they have heard”. Nobody has been able to answer even basic questions like:
What happened? When did it happen? Can you give me a name of someone who was involved in the incident(s)? How many incidents were there? Is there any email, document, or other written communication that supports this? Peoria Guy, if you can answer any of these questions, call me. If you know anyone that can answer these questions, call me.
If Caterpillar’s “power” is at work here as you suggest, its the company’s ability to silence people that know something but won’t talk. It has nothing to do with journalists not asking the questions.
Again, if you know something, let’s talk.
With regards to the [portion removed by blog owner] incidents at Caterpillar, you can’t expect any individuals involved to provide information on these events. Once a case is settled further discussion is prohibited. Mr. Holling’s lapse from grace, thrice over, will remain buried forever.
“Once a case is settled further discussion is prohibited. Mr. Holling’s lapse from grace, thrice over, will remain buried forever.”
This is where you are wrong. If there, are, in fact, three different people that can corroborate the allegations, talking to one of them and protecting their identity would be easy. You can’t sue someone for breaking a confidentiality agreement if you don’t know who they are. Taking action against one of them would be impossible when it could have been any one of three people that talked.
But it takes some inkling of information to pursue this other than saying “Everyone knows its true” or “That’s what I’ve heard.”
Forget it. These are BS allegations, known to be untrue by those spreading them. If they were true, someone — you, me, CJ, another member of the press — would have been contacted by someone willing to give us a name.
As they used to say in USENET before the trolls ruined it: PPOR (provide proof or retract).
Until then, I refuse to waste one moment of time or energy even considering it.