17 replies to this topic

[ducky]

The city has hired Evert Palmer (Current Assistant Manager for City of Folsom) as the new city manager.

http://www.sacbee.co...s-new-city.html

[tgianco]

Finally! Evert's a good man and has been with the city for quite some time. He knows the in's and out's of most departments and has overseen plenty of them. We're in good hands with him, and I hope he stays for quite some time.

[Goodknowledge]

There are a few different ways to look at the hiring of Mr. Palmer as the new City Manager. However, the bottom line is that his hire was done for financial reasons. Many of you may not be aware that the City of Folsom, during these tough economic times, has been employing three very well paid professionals under the City Manager umbrella; the City Manager ($212,000), the Assistant City Manager ($166,000), and an Assistant to the City Manager (Approximately $110,000). For a City the size of Folsom, there is just no justification for employing three people with those types of salaries. So what the City has decided to do is to promote Mr. Palmer to the City Manager Position and not refill the Assistant City Manager position, thus saving $166,000 in base salary. From a finanical perspective, this is a smart move and perhaps something like this should have been done earlier.

One curious note about the hiring of Mr. Palmer is that he will be getting at $35,000 salary raise ($166k to 201k). While a raise is certainly deserved, I would question why someone who has never been a City Manager, with fairly limited experience, is being given a salary very similar to that of the current City Manager (Kerry Miller). Kerry Miller has a wealth of experience as a City Manager and was paid $212,000, doesn't make sense to pay someone with little experience almost as much ($201,000) when the City's financial situation is unstable to say the least.

The other question would be is Mr. Palmer the most qualified person for the job. I would suggest that if the City had done a nationwide seach they would have certainly found a candidate that was more qualified than Mr. Palmer. The other thing to consider is that the City Council (who truly runs the City) is probably much more comfortable having a City Manager that they can control rather than hiring someone from the outside who might be an unknown entity. Best of luck to Mr. Palmer in his new role.

[andy]

I think your original point (which is a good one) answers your two questions.

Only by promoting Mr. Palmer can the city comfortably eliminate his previous position. A nationwide search for a separate candidate might find someone theoretically more qualified, but would have cost money and probably have forced the city to retain all three positions to maitain institutional knowledge and quality.

Also, while you might find someone "more qualified" would that really result in a measurable improvement in how the city is run? A fully qualified person with significant inhouse knowledge is usually the best bet, even if someone with a little more pizazz in their history is available.

As to salary, his value and promotion warrant a raise, and while you can quibble over the amount, it's in the ballpark and I respect the negotiators for the city to represent its interests. There's nothing gained by treating valuable people poorly in a compensation negotiation. What would you do if he left at this inopportune time?

[Goodknowledge]

You make some excellent points. My solution would be as follows; promote Mr. Palmer to Interim City Manager and provide him with the opportunity to prove himself in the City Manager role over a period of 6-12 months. If it turns out that he is the right person for the job, then name him City Manager and don't backfill the vacant Assistant City Manager position. If it turns out he does not work out as hoped, then allow him to return to his Assistant City Manager role and conduct a nationwide search for a City Manager. Under the later scenario, I would recommend the City Council eliminate either the Assistant to the City Manager position or the Assistant City Manager Position as I don't believe both are necessary. Just my two cents on the state of the City.

[old soldier]

hiring from within is not a big surprise. usually old city managers start in small cities and when they succeed move on up to bigger cities for the bigger bucks... folsom might run a risk hiring a professional who would come in and look at some of the pro developer antics and ask the council.."what in hell are you doing" on the other hand the hire from within guy already knows how the game is played...in other words what old miklos and starskey says goes.

[momof1]

why didn't our PD hire a new chief from within?

I believe that was because it would have required someone to jump two position slots. I think the chief and the 2nd in-command both left at roughly the same time so the 2nd in-command was not available to take the top cop job. I think we hired a new chief from outside and promoted someone to the 2nd position. At least that is what I think I remember hearing happened.

[andy]

You make some excellent points. My solution would be as follows; promote Mr. Palmer to Interim City Manager and provide him with the opportunity to prove himself in the City Manager role over a period of 6-12 months. If it turns out that he is the right person for the job, then name him City Manager and don't backfill the vacant Assistant City Manager position. If it turns out he does not work out as hoped, then allow him to return to his Assistant City Manager role and conduct a nationwide search for a City Manager. Under the later scenario, I would recommend the City Council eliminate either the Assistant to the City Manager position or the Assistant City Manager Position as I don't believe both are necessary. Just my two cents on the state of the City.

Sacramento tried this and lost an excellent interim city manager (Vina) as a result...a foolish gamble in hindsight

[tgianco]

I would think hiring from within sets a good precedent for other employees as well. Having worked with Mr. Palmer on several projects, he knows the city departments inside and out. There's no transition period for him, and, technically, his hire does come cheaper. To my knowledge, he's been pseudo-City Manager for a couple of periods when we were recruiting for new city managers. I am sure when Miller started that he leaned on Palmer to show him the ropes in Folsom.

Knowing him, the work he has done and the fact that he's been with the City for a good 10 years that I know of, I think he's a great hire that will get things done, can work with ALL departments and work with them well and won't have the learning curve that we could expect from a more expensive hired gun... just my .02.

[danap513]

I have no input on Mr. Palmer's qualifications, or even whether he, personally, deserves the salary he'll be getting. But I do question why the manager of a smallish city should ever make more than the governor of our entire state. Brown's salary is $173,987 according to the most recent Council of State Governments' compensation survey. In comparison, the highest paid governor is Andrew Cuomo of New York, who is paid $179,000.

Next time I hear about city jobs being eliminated, libraries closing, and city fees going up, I'll question, once again, the decision made years ago to pay our city officials so much.

[Steve Heard]

I have no input on Mr. Palmer's qualifications, or even whether he, personally, deserves the salary he'll be getting. But I do question why the manager of a smallish city should ever make more than the governor of our entire state. Brown's salary is $173,987 according to the most recent Council of State Governments' compensation survey. In comparison, the highest paid governor is Andrew Cuomo of New York, who is paid $179,000.

Next time I hear about city jobs being eliminated, libraries closing, and city fees going up, I'll question, once again, the decision made years ago to pay our city officials so much.

It is easy to make those comparisons. Why should a basketball player make more than a teacher? Why should the players make more than the coach? Sometimes workers make more than the boss.

I'm not trying to justify the salary, just saying that there isn't a direct relationship to the governor and the city manager.

I don't know Evert well, but have had many occasions to speak with him. I saw him last week and he told me how happy he was to have the job he strived for without having to leave the city he loves.

I think he is good for Folsom.

[Harold]

It is easy to make those comparisons. Why should a basketball player make more than a teacher? Why should the players make more than the coach? Sometimes workers make more than the boss.

I'm not trying to justify the salary, just saying that there isn't a direct relationship to the governor and the city manager.

I don't know Evert well, but have had many occasions to speak with him. I saw him last week and he told me how happy he was to have the job he strived for without having to leave the city he loves.

I think he is good for Folsom.

I understand your point when jobs are that different, but in the world of government, it should be pretty obvious that the President of the US has much more responsibility than a state Governor, and that a State Governor, especially the largest economic and populated state in the union shoulders a whole lot more responsibility than a city mayor or city manager, especially a city the size of Folsom. If you can't see the scale of decision making responsibility that effects 40 thousand vs 35 million vs 280 million (not counting decisions that impact other nations), then I guess I don't know what to say.

[Steve Heard]

I understand your point when jobs are that different, but in the world of government, it should be pretty obvious that the President of the US has much more responsibility than a state Governor, and that a State Governor, especially the largest economic and populated state in the union shoulders a whole lot more responsibility than a city mayor or city manager, especially a city the size of Folsom. If you can't see the scale of decision making responsibility that effects 40 thousand vs 35 million vs 280 million (not counting decisions that impact other nations), then I guess I don't know what to say.

I don't see it as apples to apples. The president and the governor are elected officials voted in by the people. They have far-reaching power and great responsibility, so one might justify paying them a high salary. Maybe they don't get paid enough, or maybe the big money comes after they are out of office, or in 'investment opportunities' you and I don't get, or maybe the power is enough. I don't know.

The City Manager is not elected, but hired by the city, and the city must pay competitive rates to attract good candidates, without regard to what elected officials make.

The president makes $400,000 per year. The governor is responsible for one of the 50 states, so should make 1/50th of the president's salary, or $8000.

This may be an extremely silly analogy from an extremely silly person, but I just don't think that comparing an elected official's pay to the city manager is the best way to look at it. I'd be more apt to compare to other cities and what they pay their city manager.

The city manager of Santa Monica, with a population of 92,000, made $315,000 in 2009, which the city manager of Los Angeles, with a population of over 4,000,000, bot paid $53,000 less, at $262,000. Locally, the city manager of Roseville made $353,000 in 2010.

So, I wouldn't call $200K a bargain, but I just don't compare it to the gubna.

[Harold]

I don't see it as apples to apples. The president and the governor are elected officials voted in by the people. They have far-reaching power and great responsibility, so one might justify paying them a high salary. Maybe they don't get paid enough, or maybe the big money comes after they are out of office, or in 'investment opportunities' you and I don't get, or maybe the power is enough. I don't know.

The City Manager is not elected, but hired by the city, and the city must pay competitive rates to attract good candidates, without regard to what elected officials make.

The president makes $400,000 per year. The governor is responsible for one of the 50 states, so should make 1/50th of the president's salary, or $8000.

This may be an extremely silly analogy from an extremely silly person, but I just don't think that comparing an elected official's pay to the city manager is the best way to look at it. I'd be more apt to compare to other cities and what they pay their city manager.

The city manager of Santa Monica, with a population of 92,000, made $315,000 in 2009, which the city manager of Los Angeles, with a population of over 4,000,000, bot paid $53,000 less, at $262,000. Locally, the city manager of Roseville made $353,000 in 2010.

So, I wouldn't call $200K a bargain, but I just don't compare it to the gubna.

I guess I don't make the distinction on how one gets hired to do a job, hired by the electorate (aka voted into the job) or hired by those who were elected. and I'm not saying what dollar amount is fair, but I would also look at managing the city of Folsom as being somewhat equivalent to being the CEO of a company of about 500 employees with a similar employee salary distribution.