|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 11:13 AM
Atherton city manager pay talks go private
|
|
by Renee Batti
Almanac Staff
Should the new city manager's salary be adjusted now that he's decided not to live in the town-owned house that was to be part of his compensation? That's the question two Atherton City Council members will discuss with George Rodericks in private after the council delayed making a decision on the matter at last night's meeting.
At the Jan. 16 meeting, Mayor Elizabeth Lewis appointed herself and Vice Mayor Jerry Carlson to try to work out a plan that would allow Mr. Rodericks to continue living in his Marin County residence while possibly increasing his salary because residence in the Watkins House was originally intended to be part of his overall compensation.
Traditionally, city managers have resided in the house, located in Holbrook-Palmer Park, and the housing was part of their compensation package.
Mr. Rodericks was hired in October with an annual salary of $160,000 and a monthly transportation allowance of $2,500 until June, when the move to Atherton would occur -- or might occur, depending on whose interpretation of the agreement is accepted.
In a staff report for the agenda item, which appeared on the consent calendar and had to be pulled so the council could discuss it, Mr. Rodericks noted that during negotiations he indicated that he "may or may not be using the home in the short-term," and he therefore agreed to a "housing offset of $30,000 per year until such time as the decision was made to either use or not use the residence."
Since that time, he has concluded that there are "personal challenges to using the house" as his primary residence, and is now seeking a salary increase to reflect a housing benefit, the staff report said.
The value of the house is $60,000 per year, and that amount was "deducted from an overall compensable salary of $220,000," Mr. Rodericks said in his report.
But Councilman Bill Widmer and former council member Kathy McKeithen, who negotiated Mr. Rodericks' contract before it was ratified by the full council, challenge the city manager's version of the agreement.
During the public comment period, Ms. McKeithen called the staff report "a gross misrepresentation" of the negotiations, and "a fairy tale." From what was discussed during the talks, "it was pretty clear he was going to live (in the house)."
Councilman Widmer said he was "a little taken aback" by the request to revise the contract, and that the two negotiating council members were "pretty adamant" they wanted the city manager living in town. "I don't feel the taxpayers should be bearing the cost" for $30,000 or more per year as a result of Mr. Rodericks' decision to commute rather than live in town, he said.
But Mr. Carlson noted that there are "complexities beyond his control" that make it difficult if not impossible for Mr. Rodericks to relocate to Atherton, and recommended that an ad hoc committee be appointed to come up with a compromise.
Mayor Lewis said it was her understanding that Mr. Rodericks' hiring was not predicated on his living in the Watkins House. She said she and Mr. Carlson would meet with the city manager and bring a recommendation back to the council to discuss in a February closed session.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by A contract should stand, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm It is absurd that Atherton would change its contract after the fact and give the City Manager a higher salary. It was part of the job description that he would live in the house in Atherton for more than monetary reasons. It would be disgraceful and illegal to change now. The council members who disagree are looking for an easy way out at taxpayers' expense. A Manager who lives in Marin County is way out-of-touch with Atherton. Let's get a better candidate and dump this guy!
|
|
Posted by Lewis' view, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm $60,000 raise after two months on the job. Good going, Liz Lewis.
In a phone interview Thursday, Lewis said she thought Rodericks should get an additional $60,000 since he won't be living in the house.
"I don't see it as a financial hardship to the town to pay the city manager his fair compensation," Lewis said.
Her asst. Cary Wiest agrees.
Newly elected Council Member Cary Wiest said increasing Rodericks' compensation should be considered because "circumstances do change" and recruiting another city manager would be costly.
|
|
Posted by hold your nose, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jan 18, 2013 at 8:06 am Looking at the video of last nights discussion on this matter (including remarks by Kathy McKeithen who was on committee to negotiate Mr Rodericks compensation) it is pretty clear he accepted moving into the managers house in the Park as part of his contract. There was a small travel allowance which expires in June. So it is clear that Rodericks and some members of the Council want to abrogate that compensation agreement and to do it in closed session.
This is completely wrong and if Mr Rodericks does not like what he accepted he should leave. The Council spent a whole year spending well over $10,000 to hire a law firm and consultants to mandate a new contract for the ten unrepresented employees. Ultimately, the saving to the town in pension contributions is $96,000 a year for this group. Now they are considering giving $30,000 more per year to Mr Rodericks so he can commute to Atherton and in addition maintain an empty house.
This just does not make sense in light of the frugality preached by Mr Dobbie. The new Council is starting off making a really bad financial decision in the face of morale bruising demand on the employees. Hold your nose.
|
|
Posted by videofan, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jan 18, 2013 at 8:54 pm So heres how it worked. City manager job advertised, council not pleased with applications. Salary raised to $220k and the applicants get more interesting. The town makes their picks and to save some bucks tells him the house is worth $60k per year leaving his pay at $160k. Of course he'll want to live in the park in Atherton, wouldnt anyone? Wrong. They have been paying him an additional $2.5k per month, which the math says is $30k per year, for travel expenses, which is a heck of a lot of gas in a honda. That would make his current anual salary with travel $190k.
ive heard it said its ilegal to require a city employee to live in the city of employment. Next headline: another lawsuit against atherton. Pay the guy. WMD got outsmarted on this on, as has been the norm the past year. Not a big deal, just swallow hard and move on.
|
|
Posted by cough it up, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2013 at 7:28 am Videofan, what evidence can you offer that the salary was ever set at $220K? That's being fiercely denied by the two council members who negotiated the contract. Cough up the evidence if it exists. If it doesn't and your only intent is to continue the pathetic "WMD" assaults, show some responsibility. This is serious business, but no one will take you seriously if you make such statements with no evidence.
|
|
Posted by Get smart, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2013 at 8:15 am Why would Lizzy think that she and Jerry should sort this out. Good business practices say the original participants should be involved. The City Manager played up to the Mayor's ego and she took the bait.
|
|
Posted by videofan, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2013 at 10:50 am So were does it say the 2.5k is for travel as Widmer and McKeithen claimed on Wednesday night?
Web Link
It was always meant to be salary, which would be given up upon the move into the "palace" or "mansion" or whatever they are calling the house.
Where does the job description say "will live in Atherton Park"?
Web Link
Pay the man and MOVE ON, always such a problem in this town.
|
|
Posted by Olive, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2013 at 11:30 am I love how the national press has picked up on this story and claimed the City Manager doesn't want to live in the Town's "mansion". They make it sound like the New York Mayor's "Gracie Mansion".
This house sits at the corner of a public park. Who would want to live next to a public parking lot? It's busy when the park's open. And, it could be dangerous after dark. It's not like they lock the park up at night.
The mansion is not a typical $6 million Atherton parcel. The Town may have thrown some money at it a few years ago, but it's not the deal WMD made it out to be.
But, wait. There's more!
THEN, after he signed the agreement, WMD pulled the rug out from under him by enacting a series of unadvertised compensation reductions. Talk about "bait and switch". Where are the ethics?(rhetorical question)
I don't blame the City Manager for taking a run at the extra compensation. The fact is, he probably found the job to be a LOT different than what he was told. He found the "mansion" to be way over valued by his suitors.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
