There were many letters to the editor in last week’s Wednesday Journal. Several of them concern my comments about three senior managerial employees at village hall. Some call the statements low class, some suggest I was bought by the unions, some say my statements attack the village manager form of government and some are in support of my actions and my statements.
Well like many people, I must confess, I have sinned. I have committed the sin of listening. Listening to what employees and citizens have to say was, according to the Wednesday Journal endorsement of my bid for president, “a trait not easily dismissed.” In fact, they went on to say that (paraphrasing) he is impacted by what citizens say … and I am adding the words “and what staff has to say.”
President David Pope provides a long and well thought out letter stating his views. Dan Haley also wrote his column. What really impacted me though was the editorial and the call to a higher standard. The Journal editors are right. I am wrong.
The responses to my statements are strong. They are also a valuable lesson in the power of the press and freedom of speech.
I will not attempt to respond to some of the outrageous charges by a former trustee. In my opinion, several former trustees were invisible while the negative employee situation festered. The culture of hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil seemed to imply that the problems would go away.
President Pope knows there are labor/management problems. He also acknowledges part of the problem has been the style of management. He has consistently said we need a proactive manager and not a reactive one. He has voiced real frustration concerning employee-related issues. While David is a very good president, he is approaching every issue like a consultant. If we just analyze it, if we just diagram, if we just review it, then formulate outcomes that we can measure … all admirable objectives and goals. While time passes, people’s lives are affected emotionally, financially and physically … not to mention the thousands of wasted tax dollars on litigation and appeals. Sometimes, actions need to be taken with less-than-perfect information.
Contrary to some opinions, I have never involved myself in union negotiations, I never asked for any favors for any employee, I have never suggested any employee be given preferential treatment, nor have I ever “sold” my actions to any group for one drop of silver. I am adequately remunerated, as all trustees are, $19.25 per day, for on average 30-40 hours of work per week on behalf of the citizens.
What I have, from day one, insisted on is fairness. The systemic culture in village hall is able to hide behind a cloak of “it is personnel, we cannot discuss it” or “in our form of government we don’t concern ourselves in these issues.” The ability to hide behind a cloak of invisibility does not allow for a fair hearing for the “small” guys who work for all citizens.
Yes, there is the EEOC, the arbitration process and other methods to deal with issues of personnel. However, that is not the issue either. These processes should run their normal course. The issue is “the methods” that are used to even get to these levels of review. We spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, appeals, and unnecessary actions.
Are there workers who were fired, suspended and challenges that the village should fight? Yes. Should tax dollars be spent for the proper legal defense of the village interests. Yes.
Our policemen and women, firemen and women, sanitation workers, street-sweepers, clerks, secretaries, administrative assistants, receptionists, code enforcement officers, accountants, all have names and families, too. They deserve a culture that has respect for them.
The public hears about most issues from the PR team at village hall, the local media, e-mail and the grapevine. Oak Park has a communication system that is simply amazing. That is a good thing. The real question is what information is in the pipeline?
If the fox in the hen house controls the information, then the hens lose. Of course, the hens could organize and fight back. The problem is the hens often end up cooked.
Anyone who works, wants an environment in which they are valued. I know, some will say that is an ironic statement coming from me. But is it really ironic? If the employees of an organization feel they are not being heard and cannot speak freely as they go up the chain of command, where do they go?
One element of a positive work environment is trust.
The question is neither the number of labor contracts agreed to nor the lower number of grievances … the question is, “How are the workers being treated? Is there a culture of fear and intimidation? Is there a culture of mutual respect? Is there a culture of termination threats if you do not do as you are told, even if it is wrong? Is there an impact on service to citizens from this negative culture? Is the impact really clear? Does anyone want to get to the truth?”
There is no doubt that I have stepped on a sacred cow. I admit that in the NLC there is support and dismay for my actions. We do not have, nor do we need, a lock-step organization that can’t disagree and agree to disagree.
What we can’t afford is my personal comments to be a larger issue than the well-being of the village. By “village,” I mean the citizens and labor and management. My supporters might say, “You have no need to apologize,” and my detractors would say what they said in the Journal, March 29.
What I do have is the moral obligation to apologize to Mr. Swenson, Mr. Heisse and Mr. Spatero. I apologize for the manner in which I spoke and for the choice of hurtful words.
The public manner of my comments and the harshness of the tone were and are inappropriate. For this digression from civility, I am truly sorry. I also apologize to the members of their respective families who do not deserve to see their husband and father commented on in the manner that I did.
My apology is for directing my comments directly at individuals by name and the tone of the comments. The labor issues and the problems still stand and will need a very good new village manager to address them.
Lastly, I challenge the board to have an open, independent review of labor management relations, a culture survey and review of the personnel policies and their implementation. I urge you to consider having this done by an outside consultant who is hired by the new manager. In addition, the review should be anonymous, allowing individuals the opportunity to speak to the issues. Lastly, I urge you to begin this process no later than July 1, 2006, before our summer hiatus.
