A new year begins and council resumes its meeting schedule. January 7, 2014 will be the council’s first workshop of the new year. On the agenda are 3 items: a legislative update, consideration of municipal marketing and consideration of revamping the city’s organizational structure.
Two of the items are Julie Frisoni’s. One, municipal marketing is an idea she had floated previously in April of 2012. On its first go-round council rejected the idea but persistence pays off and it has resurfaced. It’s a simple concept. Allow corporations to buy advertising space on city properties — libraries, buildings, vehicles and assorted other assets. While it has been partially implemented by larger cities nationally its use in the Valley has been very limited. Mesa does allow advertising on its utility bills and the revenue generated pays for the printing costs of the city’s newsletters. Other uses in the Valley have been by school districts on their school buses and by independent fire departments like Daisy Mountain Fire Department on their fire trucks. I guess there are a lot of local municipalities who would prefer not to become tacky looking with corporate advertising running rampant.
The cost to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek corporate advertising bids is between $40,000 and $75,000. Frisoni ends her presentation with the cryptic, “The source of funding would have to be identified if directed to move forward.” In plain English that means she doesn’t know where the money would come from. You can be sure that some department will end up forking over the money to fund this idea, if adopted. The city’s financial condition makes the idea very tempting. Ask yourself the question: Do you want to see corporate advertising throughout our city, including Arrowhead? I can hear the screams of outrage emanating from North Glendale now. This idea is akin to the billboard fiasco in Arrowhead. If they can’t accept billboards up there what makes Frisoni think they will accept corporate advertising all over the place?
The third item on the agenda is a presentation by Frisoni and Management Partners, Inc. The company was hired by City Manager Brenda Fischer at a cost of $46,800 — just $3,200 under the $50,000 limit that can be independently spent by the City Manager. Could be it that Fischer thought she might not get enough support on council to move on this strategy and so she made sure the contract came in under $50,000?
To the outsider, you and I, it looks like further consolidation of the City Manger’s power base. Management Partner, Inc.’s (MP) primary task was to review the structure of the enterprise funds (water, sewer and sanitation) executives as well as all other executive positions down to the division level and to recommend a new organizational structure that would go into effect on July 1, 2014. Hmmm…before you have visions of a reduction in expenditures for executive level employees, remember this – no employee leaves employment in Glendale unless he/she leaves voluntarily for employment elsewhere, retires or he/she has been fired. They are simply moved around and offered a position somewhere else in the organization at the same pay level.
As for the presentation itself by Frisoni and MP, I guess we will have to wait for the council workshop as no organizational restructuring strategies were publicly released with this agenda. It must be problematical or MP’s recommendations would have been make public already.
Lastly, there are two citizen groups in Cave Creek that are mounting recall petition drives to remove all six councilmembers with the exception of the mayor. Although the two groups oppose one another, their reasons for recall are eerily similar: fiscal irresponsibility, misrepresentations to the public in the last election and lack of transparency. It could have been written about some of our newly elected councilmembers in Glendale for we have seen shades of some of the same shenanigans.
© Joyce Clark, 2014
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Joyce….I’m confused with Management Partner’s task to “review the structure of the enterprise funds executives and recommend a new organizational structure” ? Is Brenda Fisher aware that a year ago 50+ citizens spent 8 months on an in depth review of Craig Johnsons Water and Sewer Dept ? I know the vast majority of us were very impressed with how Craig and his staff manage our cities water and sewer entities. Their dedication to the overall effort was extremely impressive. With that said I’m sure Craig would be the first to agree that continuous improvement is always a necessity and is the type of manager that continually strives for perfection. In my opinion I wouldn’t mess with something that isn’t broke much less spend $46,800 that we can’t afford. Our biggest problem as a group was allowing the City to access the Enterprise funds for Hockey payments. Unless something drastic has changed in the employee base in the past year I don’t get it!
Bob, I don’t disagree with the findings of the Citizen’s Water Advisory Committee. You were a member of that group and you possess a great deal of water knowledge as a result. This initiative, when publicly announced that the City Manager was hiring a consultant to look at the organizational structure, was under the public radar. No one paid much attention to it. The initiative is designed to review not only enterprise executive positions but all executive positions throughout the organization. It will be disguised as a way to streamline the organization but its real purpose will be to consolidate the City Manager’s power.
This contract seems to be one taken out of the old regime play book “keep it under $50k and you don’t have to ask council. I was looking at the city code and it says all contracts must be approved by the council.
Another comment about this contract is that I think it will be used to get some people out this is how some of the upper management people will be removed. Another poor effort to fix the budget problem is on the way. This report will recommend consolidation of some services and outsourcing some others without regards for the benefits to the community. It will recommend privatizing the landfill and garbage collection in order to get rid of some payroll, another area that will be attacked will be the transportation programs funded by the voter approved half cent sales tax. Let’s turn that over to the private sector and save money by getting rid of staff. We will consider this as some of the east valley cities are trying to figure out how to control cost overruns by there private providers. Parks Recreations and library services will be a thing of the past or it will change so much we will not recognize it. The big question is how what do we do with these recommended changes before council makes a decision on next years budget.
Oh on the other issue yes get ready for the “Pepsi Recreation Center of Arrowhead” and the “Ranch Market Rose lane pool” sad but true.
The Marketing proposal seems to have some merit, though once again, some on the council only looked at the number and missed the point. Mesa has received about $250K since 2010 (not every year) by allowing an outside company to insert advertisements into the local utility bill (i.e. Glendale water bill). That is only a little more than $80K per year and does not equate to saving two heads as mentioned by the Mayor. CM Alvarez wants to make sure that if we (Glendale) get $250K like Mesa, that she (the Council) can state where it will be spent and not just lumped into the General Fund income line. CM Chavira joked with the Mayor about whether Coke was onboard for this marketing endeavour since the Mayor had a Diet Coke can in front of him. As I mentioned, Sonic should be paying Glendale bigtime since the City Manager always has her large Sonic drink cup visibly present.
The proposed reorganization was very well done. (I see somebody else was also concerned about using the “Executive Director” title for a department director.) Being an IT person, it was interesting to see the proposed move of technology into the “Finance” area and it was also nice to hear that IT does have a technology agenda, it just has not had support at the upper levels and the analyst believe that Glendale is not using technology to the city’s advantage.
Guess Ms. Fisher needs to find two qualified individuals to fill the Assistant City Manager positions (one currently vacant and one with an “interim” ACM).
I’m fine with allowing corporations to buy advertising space on city properties like parks and libraries as long as the City maintains tight control on what is appropriate (if residents complain the ad is removed/changed) AND the revenues generated are used to support the facilities in which they are located. The problem is that most of our elected representatives have no common sense or self control. We’ll likely end up with offensive ads on every possible square inch of property in order to maximize the revenue stream, all of the advertising will be in west Glendale, and the revenue will support some new construction in the Arrowhead area. On a quick re-read that does sound a bit cynical, but I still think it’s an accurate assessment based on past council performance.