Updated
Roseville City Manager dismissed
City votes 4-1 to pay Robinson $390,136
After a month of speculation, the Roseville City Council decided to dismiss City Manager Craig Robinson. City Attorney Brita Bayless announced the results of the closed session meeting Wednesday night stating council had voted unanimously to release Robinson. In a separate vote, regarding Robinson’s severance, council voted 4-1 to pay out his contract over the course of a year. Councilwoman Pauline Roccucci issued the dissenting vote and said she felt the lack of communication between Robinson and the council was reason enough to terminate his contract with cause and without pay. “It comes to a point where it’s more controlling and manipulative than just a strong manager,” Roccucci said. “Because of that I pushed for termination with cause. We needed change.” That change will come with a price tag of $390,136 paid out over the course of 12 months, which is the total amount of a year’s salary plus the cash value of Robinson’s benefits as directed by his contract. “My God, that’s obscene,” said Roseville resident Clay Kowart when he heard the news. “Especially in this economy when other departments have made tremendous cutbacks.” Kowart said after remarks made last week by Roseville Mayor Gina Garbolino, he was expecting a dismissal without pay but said, “I shouldn’t be surprised, (council) let us down.” Garbolino maintained her statements of communication and relationship issues becoming a distraction for council, but said that alone was not reason enough to terminate Robinson’s contract with cause. “We can terminate (Robinson’s) contract for a variety of reasons,” Garbolino said. “Communication is not a cause. Cause has very different guidelines like criminal action or malfeasance, which there was none so we terminated without cause 4-1.” “I think there’s more on this than what council would like to have out,” Kowart said. Efforts made by The Press Tribune to reach Robinson were unsuccessful. Former Roseville Mayor and Councilwoman June Wanish said deteriorating communication should have been a justifiable reason to dismiss Robinson, but wondered if fear of repercussion was the ultimate reason behind council’s decision. “If he protested and took the city to court who knows the cost of court fees,” Wanish said. “It could have been better in the long term to pay him now than follow through with court proceedings.” Roccucci said given the cost to the city of Robinson’s salary and benefits she would have stood by her decision even if it meant going to court. “Now is not the time to be paying an extra salary that he doesn’t warrant. Council is scraping nickels and dimes at every council meeting and the community is doing the same,” Roccucci said. “I would go to the mat to make sure he’s not getting a free ride.
|
Change Location:
|
Well.....That clears that up. ??
If they had to pay him a year's salary to fire him...they should have just made him work next year...maybe in the parks dept picking up poop at the dog park!
So that's it? All we are to know is that Robinson was dismissed without cause and nothing else? I think that's not exactly transparent. Why fire someone without cause? If they had no cause to fire him, aren't they wasting $273,000? I thought the City was broke.
If you think the City is broke, you are sadly misinformed. The city is only broke when it has to pay it's employees, but it has lots of money for shrines to themselves. Like a Carol Garcia park, or Rocucchi Bum Shelter, or anything like that.
I agree with the post above! Why not make him work his #$%^^ for a year helping with the city in every level in every dept. This way he can see how hard the low paid people really work compared to sitting in a plush office, driving a car and hiring all his church friends. How he can go to church each week and feel good about himself is just SICK!!!!! Just shows that some churches are just a front for BAD people
Rosevile needs to get over the idea that a "City Manager" is even needed to get our business done. If the Mayor and Council can't get the job done, then we need to get a new Mayor and Council. There's no need to hire an overpaid, so-called professional to do what every one of us does every day. Running a household or running a business is not brain surgery. I can do it and so can most people. It just take a little common sense. Most of our "services" in this city are operated to serve the bureaucrats that run them. Time to clean house, folks.
Bill Schultz
Uh, that last quote by Roccucci should read, "go to the mat" not "map". I don't know if that was an error on Roccucci's part, a malapropism, or the reporter's, but it should be corrected.
Wouldn't it be nice to wake up, get the paper, open it up and read the following headline. COUNTY DISMISSES CEO MILLER AND HIS COURT OF JESTERS.
Wow what a fantastic day for County empployees and residents that would be.
Billybob1 right on .Why have a mayor and council at all? Why not just elect a city manager? The thing that made this country great was not layer on top of layer of bureaucracies. Common sense people please common sense.
It is obscene to think that the average city worker is going to have to work four years to make what this man is making in one sitting at his home. Why is there no one pointing fingers at the City Council for aproving such lucrative contracts. It is very true that these people have huge ego's trying to make this city something bigger. This is Roseville nothing more no amount of land is going to make this into a big city.
Loomisresident. Yes, that would be awesome. I get giddy just thinking about it. I hope that is the morning headline the day after the next election.
Isn't "termination without cause" sort of an oxymoron ?
Geez C_R "termination without cause" remember... that is a clause in the Health Care bill.... It kicks in when ya get really old!
The grand jury needs to come in and review the pay and benifits of all the City of Roseville managment...........
Of course there is more to the story. It's sad that current employees are circulating various "theories", whether there is any evidence or not. It's only normal to hear rumors because there is not rumor control from the top. Thank you, Pauline for speaking up for doing the right thing. Her action speaks very loudly that there were actions by the ex-manager for termination with cause. Sadly, there are continuous shameful violations of our trust at ALL levels of government up to the very top. When the wrongful actions are not stood up to, it comes across as approval for the remaining higher ups to act similarly and signals to the line staff that there are clearly different rules for them versus management. Do we really need such a large management structure in Roseville? City managers and assistant city managers, department heads and asst department heads, supervisors and asst supervisors, jeepers! There are employees that have worked decades trying t keep up with technology, the best customer service, maintain great co-worker relationships without needed staffing, forego pay increases to pay for other programs(always when the City is in a financial pinch) with few role models to strive toward, then staff retire and then the City ex-manager wants to rewrite the rules years into retirement for those highly dedicated people. Folks, you can goonline and see the contracts for all the City workers, but how come the City Manager gets fired and we're surprised by the perks?????
Councilwoman Roccucci is telling us they are scraping nickels and dimes, then would use our taxpayer money to try to fight a legal contract? We all could have saved a lot of nickels and dimes if they had just left him there until he retired. He wasn't that far off and we would have gotten a year's work for no additional costs that are adding up right now with hiring someone new. Anyone who has a contract with the city of Roseville better watch out. Whether you work there or do business with them, your contract means nothing, according to Roccucci. Great leadership.
The city council was half of the problem with the city manager. They should be dismissed by the voters for CAUSE....
I wanted to clarify a point of information, which is different from what this article portrays: According to the city manager's contract, the only reason that the City could have avoided paying a severance would have been "the conviction of any felony involving moral turpitude." The phrase "for cause" is not found in the contract.
The Council's 4-1 vote was whether to pay a lump sum severance or spread out the severance over a year, which are the two options in his contract.
Megan MacPherson
Communications Manager
City of Roseville
Well, we got it from the horse's mouth! Then why didn't they report it that way in the article? And then why the big deal over the phrases, "Cause" and "no cause"? Both the Bee and the PT, not to mention various councilmembers, made it sound like there was a difference other than the manner in which he would be paid. Besides, maybe Pauline R. thinks he is guilty of a felony? And why would Robinson possibly sue the city if he was fired "with cause" if it's only anout payment options, as has been hinted at in this and other articles? There's something missing from all of this - maybe we'll find out eventually.
A question for the city communications manager: Does your comment mean Ms. Roccucci voted as the only one who wanted to pay him a lump sum? Does that save money?
Recall the city council they are the ones that wasted the money!!! Look at what we spent on some stupid Rose Parade Float and what did we get back.
It is amazing every other city employees contract was null and void when things turned bad. The City Council and City Manager came to the barganing units opened the contracts and starting slashing, but amazingly when it was time for him to go his contract is rock solid and would be to expensive to fight in court. Truly Amazing!
gardy210 you hit the nail on the head in the police dept they are talking about needing more supervisors more Lt's in a police department that runs itself go on a ride along and keep an eye out in the Sgt's and Lt's office you will see alot of gossiping and surfing the web. Look at what the Chief of Police makes the same salary as a three star general in charge of fifty thousand troops. The PD has about 200 employees.
In my opinion, the Council did not want to release with cause because then they'd have to disclose what the cause was. Then the public would know the scandalous things that have been allowed to go on in the City.
Any time I think I’m too cynical to be surprised, something proves me wrong. This is like complaining the restaurant's food sucks and the portions are too small. I am amazed we are looking for reasons for Craig’s termination when it just boils down to your sniping.
Robinson had the credentials to get a contract in line with other CA cities with our size and amenities. If not him it would have been someone else getting a similar contract because that is the market. When this started there were no complaints about his performance, only his compensation. I’m sorry, but if Jack Wallace publicly tells me to take a 60% pay cut, I might dig my heels in and stop listening too. If the citizens want the City Manager to make less money you go to council, not the employee. Over the last several months the sniping from citizens and employee groups got too big to ignore. The only cause for termination is that it’s a bad time to be making that much money. Deteriorated Communication sounds a lot like Irreconcilable Differences which is divorce court speak for time to move on.
Why the vote was 4-1? How about because the four have been seated long enough to recognize that they need to honor the contract that they authorized/reauthorized? Pauline was just seated, her fingerprints aren’t on the contract so why should she have a conscience to make good on a commitment she didn’t make?
When he wouldn’t take the huge pay cut, you wanted him gone. Really, …
How about having the city manager sit with the city staff rather than with the councilors? That way it sends a strong message the city manager is not a councilor. Also it doesn't allow for "sidebar" conversations with the councilors. Finally, what a novel concept...the city manager sits with the staff he/she manages.
The City is not broke. They were recently granted $1M from the Obama stimulus and have yet to explain how the money will be used. The City does not comply with the Public Records Act when their frivolous spending is brought to light. Give them a try Press Tribune. The City has made some grossly negligent spending decisions in the past 2 years. Specifically, the proposal and approval of another indoor swimming pool at the recently completed Central Park. How many swimming pools and soccer fields does one City need? This $11MILLION dollar project was proposed by the Parks Commission and ultimately approved by City Council while the attendance for swimming has declined year over year since 2004 according to the City's own record-keeping data. Who, in sound business practice, could recommend such a project to the Council? The Parks Dept. is making arbitrary decisions and injecting their personal beliefs into the type of ammenities this City receives and how large amounts of unmonitored monies are spent. If you have a Parks Director that likes tennis, you get tennis courts everywhere. If they prefer soccer, you have soccer fields everywhere, etc. etc. All sports are not given equal consideration and majority age composition groups are not considered in Park planning. If the City wants cause for dismissal, the City Manager should be held criminally negligent for allowing his Park Dept. employees to propose such an obnoxious $11M swimming pool!