Tonight’s City Council COW meeting is scheduled to feature the continuing saga of City Mgr. Jim Hock’s employment contract, which expired on July 13, 2009, but which is being treated as if in full force and effect while the Mayor and City Council continue to fiddle with it.
For those of you who care about this kind of stuff, Hock was hired despite then-mayor Howard Frimark’s desire that the job go to one of his insurance clients. But even though Hock was Frimark’s second (or third?) choice, Hock still was given a sweet deal [pdf], including:
* annual base salary of $165,000;
* $8,500/year in deferred compensation (increasing to $10,000/year after year one);
* 16 vacation days, increasing to 20 days (a/k/a 4 weeks) in year 2;
* a $350,000 interest free loan toward his purchase of a residence in Park Ridge, and the forgiveness of $5,000/year of that loan up to a maximum of $50,000;
* an unmarked City vehicle, including gas, insurance and maintenance;
* all off his moving expenses from Oak Park, Michigan;
* the real estate commission and attorneys’ fees for the sale of his Oak Park condominium;
* up to $12,000 of living expenses that first year until Hock moved to Park Ridge;
* up to another $12,000 in expenses to maintain his Oak Park condo until it is sold; and
* various other benefits.
That’s over $190,000/year just counting his base salary, deferred comp, no loan interest, loan forgiveness and car expenses. And he isn’t even required to produce a balanced budget or any annual “profits” (i.e., surpluses) to remain employed.
We’re willing to bet there are more than a few Park Ridge residents who are qualified to do that job and would jump at that package. And we suspect some of them could do it as well, or better, than what we’ve seen from Mr. Hock so far – especially in light of his recent giveaway of $25,000 to departing Community Development director Carrie Davis, and his $20,000+ deal for departing Public Information Coordinator Aggie Stempniak to produce The Spokeman, neither of which was brought to the Council for the required approval.
Those disclosures provoked – justifiably – the ire of both Mayor Dave Schmidt and Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward) at last week’s Council meeting, but got little more than a ho-hum from the other 5 aldermen (Ald. Don Bach was missing) who have consistently demonstrated their love of giving away the taxpayers’ money for no good reason and without demanding any quid pro quo return.
But another hang-up on a new Hock contract appears to be his desire to secure that sweet comp package with a 12-month severance – which amounts to no less than $165,000 for Hock not to work for the City.
The mayor and Wsol expressed serious reservations about that deal as well.
But leave it to that towering statesman from the 4th Ward, Ald. Jim Allegretti, to defend the 12-month severance by arguing that it will “take the politics out of the [City Manager’s] job” in ways a 6-month severance cannot.
Allegretti insisted that “politics should happen” in City government and that the aldermen “are expected…to deal in politics.” He didn’t come right out and say exactly who expects politics rather than good government from the folks at City Hall, other than to refer to some people who “come in and are clamoring at the podium” of the Council chambers for the Council’s attention” – and often get it.
Acknowledging that he and his fellow politicians tend to crumple under pressure from constituents, Allegretti said the City needs a job-secure city manager to ensure that those aldermen’s “poltical will not necessarily be immediately carried out.”
In other words, we need Hock to be the good-government “adult” and prevent the Council’s political “children” from doing stupid things.
Frankly, if Hock – or any city manager – could stop our politicians from doing stupid things, he would be a bargain at twice his $190,000 or so a year.
But from what we’ve seen so far, he can’t and doesn’t seem to really want to.
And when it comes to feathering his own nest, you can bet he won’t.
15 comments so far
Hock has been like jello when it comes to holding the line on spending by these aldermen. He aslo seems less than candid about the city’s financial picture, which is the same thing he pulled last year until it was too late to do anything about the big deficit.
They should just fire his ass and hire some out of work CEO, COO or CFO from some $20-100 million business instead of these career bureaucrats who couldn’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag.
What a great idea!!
It is difficult for me to comprehend WHY this man is necessary for Park Ridge. Get someone else. There are many many others available who are qualified and can do a better job for Park Ridge. His snooty arrogant self needs to go. It’s as basic as that.
How/why the aldermen have decided to ignore the economic issues of this town are truly beyond me.
Another run coming up on the 25th!! Chamber of commerce is running it but city of PR is listed as co-sponser. Street closings. Extra crossing guards. Extra police. Ambulance on duty.
Mr. Mayor. How does this event fit in with your recent statement about tax dollars???
12:36pm…
Geez o man… hey, one-trick pony, you have made your point time and time again. The Mayor hates parades. The Mayor hates vets. The Mayor hate TOPR. The Mayor hates baseball , Moms and apple pie. Give it a friggin’ rest will you?
Maybe you didn’t notice but this is a post about Hock. How about staying on topic.
2:29 –you are right. Let’s stay on topic:
The mayor hates hock, and—
The Mayor hates parades. The Mayor hates vets. The Mayor hate TOPR. The Mayor hates baseball , Moms and apple pie.
that better for you?
2:29:
When one asks a question and does not get an answer (or a satisfactory answer)they tend to keep asking the question. Sorry I distracted you from sifting through all the other posts on this thread. The closest post came 19 hrs prior to mine. They coming too fast for ya???
Anonymous @ 2:36:
We don’t know about the mayor, but we here at PublicWatchdog don’t “hate” City Mgr. Hock…or any of those other persons or things, for that matter. On the other hand, we see nothing about Hock (or most other career government bureaucrats, for that matter) which would make him remotely close to indispensible – especially at that price.
Other than that he’s not the outright disaster former city mgr. Tim Schuenke was (at least not yet), we have to wonder just what it is about Hock that suddenly has Alds. Bach, Allegretti, Ryan and Carey so bedazzled when only last February they were looking to throw him under the bus?
I don’t have an opinion on wheteher Hock is indispensible, but his excuses in the newspaper about why he gave those severance packages to those two fomrer employees were pretty lame.
Of course no one is indispensable, but what are the specific reasons people here want Hock dispensed?
The Aldermen and the Mayor are Hocks bosses, not the other way around. How is Hock supposed to hold the line on them spending when he doesn’t get a vote?
Last year all the Aldermen, and the Mayor was an Alderman then, all voted for a budget with a big deficit in it. The Mayor evan has admitted his part in doing that. How is that Hock’s fault?
Why is it a great idea to fire Hock’s ass and hire an out of work CEO, COO or CFO without them having any training or experience in local government and municipal law?
It seems to me the people here want Hock’s ass fired because he isn’t doing what the Mayor wants him to do whenever the Mayor wants him to do it so the Mayor doesn’t have to do it.
Two grounds for firing Hock would be the two “severance” deals he cut with Carrie Davis and Aggie Stempniak, assuming the City attorney determines that Hock exceeded his authority by committing the City to obligations exceeding $20,000 without prior Council approval.
But we have yet to hear what Hock has done particularly well, especially since February when the four aldermen who just voted to improve his comp package (after cutting some personnel and freezing wages for others) were regularly criticizing him for his handling of the budget process, including his proposal of a budget that was over $200,000 in deficit.
I read the article in the papers and thought Hock’s reasoning wasn’t lame. Thinking about how to save the City money is never a lame idea.
It seems to me wanting to avoid higher unemployment costs in a bad economy where dispensed employees could be out of work for as long as two years is not the worst idea.
The Mayor and the people here seem to me to be very upset about Davis and Stempniak’s deals. Why isn’t the Mayor or the people here upset about the deal for the city’s director of economic development?
The Aldermen and the Mayor are Hocks bosses, not the other way around. How is Hock supposed to hold the line on them spending when he doesn’t get a vote?
Last year all the Aldermen, and the Mayor was an Alderman then, all voted for a budget with a big deficit in it. The Mayor evan has admitted his part in doing that. How is that Hock’s fault?
Why is it a great idea to fire Hock’s ass and hire an out of work CEO, COO or CFO without them having any training or experience in local government and municipal law?
EDITOR’S NOTE: As it is being reported, these two deals should have gone to the Council for pre-approval but Hock did not do so. Whether that was unauthorized or permissible is up to the City Attorney. But based on the deal the Frimark Four want to give Hock, even if he were found to have acted insubbordinately he still might be able to collect a year’s severance.
Once again we ask: What has Hock done that’s so good he deserves to remain employed by the City?
It doesn’t seem to be a good idea to arbitrarily dispense an employee because you can’t think of what is so good he deserves to remain employed. Dispensing an employee should be done for cause even if the employee is employed at will. It does seem Hock has done what has been asked of him the the Aldermen even if the Mayor doesn’t like it.
Since the City Attorney hasn’t finished giving his opinion, why are the people here already calling for Hock’s dismissal?
Why isn’t the Mayor or the people here upset about the deal for the city’s director of economic development?
The Aldermen and the Mayor are Hocks bosses, not the other way around. How is Hock supposed to hold the line on them spending when he doesn’t get a vote?
Last year all the Aldermen, and the Mayor was an Alderman then, all voted for a budget with a big deficit in it. The Mayor evan has admitted his part in doing that. How is that Hock’s fault?
Why is it a great idea to fire Hock’s ass and hire an out of work CEO, COO or CFO without them having any training or experience in local government and municipal law?
Is the Mayor or any of the people here willing to address the questions asked?
1. You (and apparently the Mayor) present a very weak case as to why (it would seem) you think Hock should be fired. As with so many issues, you then turn it around, to so now he is required to come to the alter of the PD and justify his existance.
2. What makes this soooooo funny is that you, more than anyone in this town, have the Mayor’s ear. If you, and therefore the Mayor, feel Hock should be fired you have the perfect method for bringing it up. The Mayor has control and runs the COW meetings. When you talk to him later today have him bring it up at the next meeting and make your case for you.
We assume the mayor, along with his political adversaries on the Council and elsewhere, seeks and gets advice from a variety of sources; and that’s the way it should be.
If the mayor happens to like and/or agree with what we publish more than he does with what is published elsewhere, so be it. His predecessor surely didn’t, nor do most of the current aldermen (go figure), so maybe its just a matter of achieving a little balance in the “universe” that’s Park Ridge.
But getting back on topic, none of you staunch Hock defenders offered even one example of what exceptional accomplishment City Mgr. Hock has achieved in his current position – not exactly a ringing endorsement.