Day of reckoning for Johnson?
The City Council likely will decide City Manager Mitch Johnson's future today.
I predict there are more votes to keep Johnson on the job than not, but that's not the point.
The council should come to terms on a constructive way to manage the manager and not turn this into a major distraction and impediment to city government getting things done.
As Councilman Mike Barber has said, both sides are right. Johnson does not deserve all of the aspersions cast his way, nor does he deserve personal attacks. But he can and should do better.
The council needs to clearly define what "better" is -- and Johnson, for his part, needs to manage his bosses better. He needs to realize that a key to his effectiveness, and professional survival, is managing a council that's very different from the previous one.
He also needs to create a stronger leadership team around him and to groom qualified successors for key positions.
He needs to manage communication with the public and the media better.
And he needs to grow another layer of skin. He can't obsess with all the hits is taking over the Wray flap. He has a city government to run.
Meanwhile, let's please not turn this into a political circus.
Comments (14)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Would only if someone, maybe like you, had advocated for David Wray's "rehab"( as opposed to his summary execution) like you are advocating here for Mitch, maybe this whole thing could have been averted. The air needs to be cleared on this. The thing is, due to gag orders, impending legal proceedings etc. etc. it's not likely to be, so this will distract, mistrust will smolder, the gov't will be effectivly paralyzed.
I think the chances he can be effective are very poor.
Posted on February 14, 2008 2:59 PM
I'm not amazed at those who want to give Mitch Johnson "chances" that were never given to give David Wray.
That's the way "business as usual" is generally conducted.
Posted on February 14, 2008 5:33 PM
According to Johnson's account, Wray chose to resign rather than explain why he had misled Johnson over the existence of the lineup book.
.
Posted on February 14, 2008 6:56 PM
Oh, PLEASE, Allen! Wray "chose to resign?" What choice did he have? He could not hire or fire officers and he was locked out of his office. Who are you kidding here? Look, we all know what a fierce defender of the status quo you are. But for crying out loud,don't insult our intelligence. Why does Mitch deserve all the kid glove treatment and David Wray was given the bum's rush? You know the answer as well as anyone, but you lack the intellectual dishonesty to admit it. God, what a hack you have become.
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:16 PM
John:
So Wray should have been placed on probation, and given a set of goals to accomplish?
I could see that. But comparing one council's decision to another's isn't exactly apples to apples.
That was a different council.
By the way, no need to call me names because we disagree, is there?
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:21 PM
That previous comment was mine, by the way.
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:23 PM
Allen, all this issue have ever been is a political circus.
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:31 PM
Good point, Jaycee. I guess I should have said it needs to end now.
The fact is, whether Johnson succeeds in keeping his job or not, the council ought to evaluate the manager based on a set of specific, measurable objectives.
That would be best for all concerned whoever occupies that seat.
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:52 PM
You're right, Allen. No need for name calling. My apologies. I was out of line.
Posted on February 14, 2008 8:14 PM
I guess Mitch was just testing Wray when he locked him out of his office. If Wray really still wanted to be police chief he could have worked out of the lavatory or could have either pitched a tent outside or worked out of the trunk of his car. Mitch proved Wray just didn't want it bad enough. I think it was a brilliant stroke by Mitch, actually.
The whole black book thing is ridiculous. If it wasn't a line-up book why would anybody put together such a thing. Has anybody asked this question? It's the age of computer.
Why would somebody bother? The whole thing is preposterous. Does anybody think that David Wray sat down and said" Gee, I think I'll put all these guys I want to get rid of in this little ol' black book". If there was one or two guys he was really out for I think he would not have to put them in a book to remember who they were. If he had a book of a lot of guys he wanted to get rid of-the due process alone and the time lags involved would take twenty years. It's just silly.
My suspicion is Wray probably was being passive agressive with Johnson. He thought Johnson was a fool, thought Johnson wanted him gone for personality conflicts or whatever, and knew that Mitch was looking for a smoking gun, like an black book for instance, to screw him with. He knew there was a perfectly good explantion for the black book and he knew it would blow up in Mitch's face at some time in the future. Mitch obviously took the bait. We'll call this the "Stealth Bomb" theory.
They are going to have to take the bull by the horns on this and just clean house and start fresh.
Posted on February 14, 2008 8:39 PM
I think the Wray/Johnson parallels are on point, and they suggest why the latter should be replaced. Specifically, I can't see how (in the aftermath of Oh-That-Memogate and multiple other examples of strategic information hoarding/broadcasting) the council can believe that Johnson will share its stated "transparency" agenda. His track record, plain and simple, shows that he's not a transparency sort of guy.
On the other hand, Rakestraw and Wade are making the case look bad with their shrillness.
Posted on February 15, 2008 1:16 AM
He lives. The council( Prefect Barbericus) looked up into the sky box and Emperor Melvinicus apparently gave thumbs up. On with the games.
And don't get stuck in the mudicus.
Posted on February 15, 2008 8:39 AM
John:
Thanks for your note. I can get a little exercised myself in the heat of a good debate.
Posted on February 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Rabble:
That was really funnicus.
However, I think you ascribe more power to Melvin than he actually has -- or thinks he has.
I'm also reasonably sure Mike Barber isn't beholden to him.
Posted on February 15, 2008 11:09 AM