PDA

View Full Version : City Manager woes



Sandra
11-18-2011, 04:11 PM
City Council held an executive session today to determine the fate of City Manager Jerry Pacheco. They had not reached a decision by the end of the day today.

large
11-18-2011, 04:17 PM
Perhaps I'm being hypercritical here, but why didn't you post that in the "City Council" thread . . ?

And where did you get the information? Just askin' because I haven't heard (or seen) anything yet . .

Sandra
11-18-2011, 04:17 PM
My personal opinion of this is that Pacheco needs to resign because his actions have left a bad taste in the mouth of the city, for one thing, and for another, are a strike against the city's reputation. Pueblo has enough rebuilding to do without this garbage going on. His actions have not been becoming of a city manager, I'm sorry to say - he was doing a fine job for a while there. I won't bother to ask what happened.

Sandra
11-18-2011, 04:20 PM
Perhaps I'm being hypercritical here, but why didn't you post that in the "City Council" thread . . ?



I usually consider the City Manager topic to be a wee bit different than the City Council one - thought I'd keep these issues separate. I predict that we'll be looking for a new city manager soon, so this will be a good topic to discuss that.

You'll be able to read about this in the Chieftain in the morning, no doubt - meanwhile you can read about it here: http://www.koaa.com/news/council-spends-hours-examining-city-manager-allegations/ and here: http://www.krdo.com/news/29806993/detail.html

large
11-18-2011, 04:40 PM
I usually consider the City Manager topic to be a wee bit different than the City Council one - thought I'd keep these issues separate. I predict that we'll be looking for a new city manager soon, so this will be a good topic to discuss that.

Not really . . Jerry Pacheco is another of those "Not enough Information" decisions that Council has made and then looked back in horror when they saw what they have done . . I dunno if they have gotten to the "Horror" part yet, but they're sure as hell on their way . . . How many will get up and say they weren't informed about all this up front when it's over remains to be seen, but I'm betting on all the incumbents to do so, and the Newbies will sit VERY quietly . .

Because . . their turn is coming . . . And we'll get to see some of their "Community Activist's" wisdom . . Let's see if they, too, can find a "Coyote ugly" date or get lucky and find a jewel . .

Loren Swelk
11-18-2011, 08:59 PM
I won't bother to ask what happened.

What happened is starting thinking with the wrong head. He won't be the first to have lost a career because of a zipper problem.

large
11-19-2011, 12:37 PM
Back to the joke about the "Pickleslicer" . .

Sandra
11-19-2011, 12:55 PM
I think it started long before that.

I agree with some I've spoken with who feel he was a good choice in that he was an impressive city manager at first, but there's this thing called integrity that he began to lose when he allowed personal issues and ideas to interfere with his ability to make administrative decisions objectively and to conduct himself in a manner befitting of a city leader.

large
11-19-2011, 01:18 PM
Bottom line . . Nepotism and employees being sexually or emotionally involved on the job reduces efficiency, negatively affects the command structure and compromises the entire mission of the enterprise or business . . Not to mention, messes with any credibility that the business or organization would want to maintain . .

As example, in a family business, you cannot fire a bad manger if that person happens to be your spouse or close relative. Expand the business or organization, how do you deny your "Squeeze" (or brother in-law) a raise or promotion? And, of course, firing the "Squeeze" is really gonna be tough!

Obviously, Mr. Pacheco has ignored one of the first tenents of being a Manager . . Thou shalt not stick your d--k in the pickleslicer . . . or anyone else on the packing line . . .

There's a lot of other rules that he's broken also, but sleeping with anyone in the employ of the city (or actually, anyone related to an employee) is rule #1, a strict No-no . . .

In theory, he shouldn't even consider any employee as a "Good Friend" . . want to stay out bad situations and lawsuits at work, don't fraternize with the hired help . . Period!

rbowman838
11-19-2011, 06:44 PM
After being an owner of a small business now for over 25 years and having family members employed, I have learned some hard lessons. Family members must be treated like all of the other employees. Managers and supervisors lose their own credibility when they try to be best friends with anyone who works for them. Managers must be held accountable under the same standards as the rest of the employees. Personal relationships between managers and employees (and, yes, anyone related to an employee) are sure fire recipies for big trouble. To think you can go fishing with an employee every weekend and then come to work on Monday morning and have to ask the employee to correct his job performance or lose his job;this is never going to be understood by that employee. "I thought we were friends?" Why are you angry with me?....... Believe me, it just doesn't work. Fraternization with the hired help is a slippery slope and it usually comes back to "bite" you in the end. I know this well because I have been guilty of trying it. Good advice is to avoid it like the plague.

large
11-20-2011, 10:56 AM
It's kind of defined in the Military structure of command . . You have the Officers, who mingle, kind of, in a more or less horizontal structure . . Then you have the NCOs, who generally mingle in a near vertical manner . . Then of course comes the "Enlisted' or "Peons" . . when things get too close and you hear, "Aw, c'mon Sarge!" that's what the non-fraternization rules were written to prevent . .

Vertical supervisory structure demands an ability for a manager to order tasks and jobs to be completed without debate . . And the guy who was drinking beer with the Manager last Friday tends to believe his "New" Buddy wouldn't make him do whatever it is he's being told to do . .

That's why a smart manager (or executive) keeps his personal social life away from the workers for the most part . . and for d@mned sure doesn't get involved sexually or emotionally (I said that before didn't I?) with any of the hired help . . And as a matter of good practice, doesn't get involved with anyone in the organization who might be an equal or upper supervisory . .

Now back when I worked in the Planning Commission, Everyone got along pretty well. We had meetings where everyone's input was asked for, accepted and in many cases used as part of a total concept. We were also given specific projects some more fun than others and was also expected, and sometimes ordered to assist other planners in their projects. The Director and the Board Members were all very nice to us (the employees), treated us well, but we were never buddies or members of their families . . There were no "Written Rules" but there was a definite understanding that you didn't fraternize with the bosses, nor did you mess with the secretaries and co-workers . . It was the unwritten "KIYP Rule" . . and as far as I know, no one ever ventured past it . .

And it was a good place to work . .

Sandra
11-20-2011, 11:23 AM
I'm curious about the general consensus here - the definition of nepotism, of course, pertains to relatives. But what about friends?

large
11-20-2011, 12:44 PM
I'm curious about the general consensus here - the definition of nepotism, of course, pertains to relatives. But what about friends?

From the "Business Dictionary":
Definition: Nepotism;
Practice of appointing relatives and friends in one's organization to positions for which outsiders might be better qualified. Despite its negative connotations, nepotism (if applied sensibly) is an important and positive practice in the startup and formative years of a firm where complete trust and willingness to work hard (for little or no immediate reward) are critical for its survival.

The latter part of the statement is probably true in many cases, and I know of several small businesses that are completely and successfully operated by family and in-laws . . But in all cases, the primary runs the operation for the good of all involved and they all completely understand both his position and the pecking order that comes with working there . . If somebody fails to understand that, then the whole operation's success is based upon how well the primary handles the problem . .

I've seen several very successful businesses closed up because of a new in law (who doesn't even work there) and needles their mate about how they are treated (etc) within the family and extended to their treatment at work . .

Sandra
11-20-2011, 01:47 PM
OK that works.

Thing is, while city administration is a business of sorts, it's a governmental entity, and nepotism has no place there.

So here's another question - if Jerry is removed from office, what will happen to those he hired for which he is accused of nepotism and/or those who willingly participated in inappropriate relationships or business dealings with him? Do they stand to lose their jobs, too?

large
11-20-2011, 02:09 PM
OK that works.

Thing is, while city administration is a business of sorts, it's a governmental entity, and nepotism has no place there.

So here's another question - if Jerry is removed from office, what will happen to those he hired for which he is accused of nepotism and/or those who willingly participated in inappropriate relationships or business dealings with him? Do they stand to lose their jobs, too?

Who knows? Over in the Police Department, there's the Eric and Mark Bravo conundrum . . Eric's a Captain and I think Mark's a Detective Corporal or Sergeant . . When it came up, the Chief moved Eric to where he wouldn't be supervisor over Mark . . But, at the time, Eric was a Sergeant. Now he's a Captain and I'm betting, somewhere there'll be an overlap . . I know 'em both and they get along great, and both respect the other's position on the PD and what each of them do . . But, if Eric continues up the rank ladder, no matter how much juggling the Chief does, eventually, one rank will supervise the other . . Another of "Soloman's" Decisions . . .

As far as being "City Employees", as far as I know, at this time anyway, none of them either supervise another or are in line to . . so they're just "Employees" I think, and Jerry's departure probably wouldn't affect them . .

But, again, I dunno . . .

Loren Swelk
11-20-2011, 02:52 PM
OK that works.

Thing is, while city administration is a business of sorts, it's a governmental entity, and nepotism has no place there.

So here's another question - if Jerry is removed from office, what will happen to those he hired for which he is accused of nepotism and/or those who willingly participated in inappropriate relationships or business dealings with him? Do they stand to lose their jobs, too?

Walker will have to go also, the judge decided Pacheco overstepped his authority on the third one and the rest will stay, though I think Tom Florczek better rethink his position. He needs to be the one who tells the king he is wearing no clothes, not complement him on the beautiful robe.

Sandra
11-20-2011, 03:13 PM
When it came up, the Chief moved Eric to where he wouldn't be supervisor over Mark . . Oh, yes - the chief. Another personal friend of Jerry's, but I won't go there. I worked alongside him while serving on a committee that served the City of Colorado Springs under Mayor Bob. He was a Captain in those days. I thought he was a good guy - I really liked him.

large
11-20-2011, 03:46 PM
Heh, heh, based upon a lot of nonsense that's come down the pike in Traffic Engineering and Planning, there might end up being a wholesale house cleaning . . They seem to have spent a lot of money on a lot of ideas that weren't either productive or practical . . The Traffic Engineer is consumed with the idea that the streets are for bicycles and that sitting at a light to cross Northern or several other high traffic streets should require a three minute wait . . and the planners are worrying about what's going on in Pueblo West or listening to the Traffic Engineer trying to reinvent the wheel and make Downtown Fourth Street a two lane one way . .

One also might note that the court ruling about the Departmental nepotism and test rigging was in Traffic . . More Questions?

One look at Lake Avenue South of Indiana would make you pause and wonder what the hell were they thinking . . a years worth of money spent on a defunct highway entrance to the city (60 years ago) to make it pretty . . but it won't change the businesses much other than maybe put a few out of business . . (Just an opinion)

But that's where they're at and it's up to you and the City Council to decide whether those people are doing an adequate job or not . . .

Sandra
11-20-2011, 04:16 PM
Since you brought it up - just a few days ago I was remarking to a friend of mine that this was really a strange stretch to beautify like that and wondered if it was because of the hospital, which is at the end of that stretch.

Loren Swelk
11-20-2011, 04:28 PM
Since you brought it up - just a few days ago I was remarking to a friend of mine that this was really a strange stretch to beautify like that and wondered if it was because of the hospital, which is at the end of that stretch.

Or possibly the new fire station which is going up. I can tell you this, the millions that were spent on the park at the south end of the lake is only frequented by parks maintenance employees. I drive by there several times a day and no cars, no people, nothing. This whole deal may be Ray Aguilera's legacy but it is a collossal waste on taxpayer (and grant) monies.

large
11-20-2011, 05:39 PM
Which, takes us back to either the City Council Thread or the City Council's Agenda Thread, if you wanna be correct . . or combine the whole mess . . into one discussion . . because it really is . . .

Sandra
11-21-2011, 09:26 PM
Has anyone seen the latest KOAA report about Jerry? I wonder why they're waiting to say anything??
http://www.koaa.com/news/council-waits-to-reveal-decision-on-city-manager/

large
11-22-2011, 07:07 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the City Council wants to control the news slant on it. In other words, cover their collective @sses . .

Jerry was their invention (most of them anyway) and they don't want it to look like another bullet hole in the foot. Not to mention, if they can him, they're really gonna be looking for a "Cinderella" and they have no glass slipper . .

Also, if they set precedent and can him, chances are, Walker and several others are going to have to become "Gone" also . . Nothing like a City Government without adequate Management or executives . .

But I still think it's ironic that they have spent more time on this than they have on many far more serious issues they have faced in the last 5 or 6 years . . And they D@mned sure didn't spend this much time deciding to hire Jerry, did they? They ran Gallo to the Gallows and, "Slam! Bang! we gots Jerry"

Gotta say one thing, though. I don't have any political axe to grind with Jerry Pacheco. I'm on his case for one reason only, and that's because he's stoopid . . Or at least stoopid about base things . . Good managers just don't do stoopid crap . . Fixing stoopid crap takes too much time and resources . . And knowing that is one of the tenents of being any kind of manager . .

Sandra
11-22-2011, 07:27 AM
They ran Gallo to the Gallows and, "Slam! Bang! we gots Jerry"



That's another thing I was wondering about. I don't recall the city meeting like this concerning the previous city manager. They did meet once, but then again, Gallo didn't committ so many offenses against the city.

And this thing about the city manager re-writing the structure of the city administration, giving himself certain powers like the ability to erase text messages at his discretion - can he do that without Council's approval? Even so, he had already committed his atrocities, he can't just cover them up by rewriting city code then grandfathering himself in - can he?

I think City Council needs to seriously consider how the things he rewrote allow for corruption and an abuse of power and put a stop to that by revoking or "undoing" what he re-wrote. Because getting rid of him will only allow future city managers to carry on with the same authority to abuse their power and privilege if they don't.

I don't understand, Large, how you could not have a problem with this politically - I certainly do. I'm very disappointed in him, I feel that he has abused his position and in so doing has abused the city.

large
11-22-2011, 07:53 AM
The biggest reason that I don't really have a "Political Problem" with him is, I don't know exactly what he has or hasn't done in the position of the City Manager. Certainly he's cost the city a bunch with this fiasco, and it's a display of either gross ignorance or plain arrogance . . Or perhaps a mixture of those two . .

And in retrospect, I guess that makes him a "Political Idiot" as much as it makes him an "Idiot" generally . .

So I guess I'm wrong . . I do have a bone to pick with him, "Politically" . . .

But, on the "Corruption" thing . . Here you go . . What really is "Corruption" and who's actually guilty of it? The word's used a whole bunch, just about everytime the Pueblo City Council does something. My recent detractor screamed "CORRUPTION" in bold letters . . . But actually putting a finger on who is paying who to do what is a whole different deal. Nepotism, I suppose, is a form of "Corruption", but it isn't very damaging to the City's operations, unless the position being filled by the relative is either not being attended or is being performed inadequately. We don't know that to be the case here . . at least until we hear it from the Council, if that's something they looked into . .

As for the kind of Corruption rdajai was accusing both the City Council and the Pueblo Chieftain of, where's the smoking gun? I do agree to a great extent, urban renewal funds have been spent in some questionable areas . . and there's some things about CBDG that I question. I've always maintained that we should be supporting the Fairgrounds more and the "Convention Center" less . . but I'd like to see names and times if we're going to scream "Corruption" . . Nameless accusations or attaching everyone's sins to a Dumb Guy who exhibited bad judgement and did a couple of stoopid things to cover his @ss peobably won't solve anything . .

Just my dime's worth . .

Sandra
11-22-2011, 10:44 AM
I still think Dave Galley (sp?) got the raw end of the deal - he may have been a little slow on some things, but he never would have ended up doing the things Jerry Pacheco did. I'm sorry, but Pacheco is a disgrace. I really hate to say that, too - because I was impressed with his work once upon a time.

Sandra
11-22-2011, 10:48 AM
OMG - KRDO TV reports that City Council has found no wrongdoing on the part of Pacheco! yikes!

Something is seriously wrong with this. That's messed up.


http://www.krdo.com/news/29833245/detail.html

large
11-22-2011, 11:39 AM
Hey! You're supposed to quote your host whenever possible . .

http://www.chieftain.com/council-pacheco-broke-no-laws/article_09ecad0c-1535-11e1-b951-001cc4c03286.html

And, if you cling to the letter of the law, he probably didn't . . But none of it passes the smell test . . . and politically, for the Council, they've become "Damaged Goods" . . .

If a little sleaze is OK, what's next?

Sandra
11-22-2011, 12:57 PM
LOL! It wasn't in the chieftain yet when I posted my comment, so thank you for the post with the link. I think that KRDO had the scoop on the whole story, since they were the ones doing the investigating. They had the story posted first, apparently other sources updated after KRDO did. That was really cool business, by the way - kudos to the other area news agencies for being gentlemen. I'm extremely impressed by that! Seriously! Good job to them all!

west4567
11-23-2011, 04:02 PM
OMG - KRDO TV reports that City Council has found no wrongdoing on the part of Pacheco! yikes!

http://www.krdo.com/news/29833245/detail.html

They found only that he broke no laws and violated no City policy.

Had he engaged in any of the practices we typically categorize as "workplace harassment," he would have been in violation. He apparently did not.

There's no rule against dating a subordinate.

Sandra
11-23-2011, 05:58 PM
This is a little beyond dating a subordinate.

Sexy text mails on city phones?
Hiring friends and family in place of other qualified candidates?
Hiding evidence? Covering tracks?

There may be NO LAWS against these things, but they certainly don't point in the direction of good leadership and are not conducive to quality city administration. Does there have to be a law against something for it to be wrong?

west4567
11-23-2011, 06:53 PM
This is a little beyond dating a subordinate.

Sexy text mails on city phones?
Hiring friends and family in place of other qualified candidates?
Hiding evidence? Covering tracks?


I'd say this was a little less than dating a subordinate; "Dating a subordinate," in modern biz-speak, is code for exerting power and unwanted advances.

In contrast, this was a case of two adults who decided to enter into a relationship. Personal messages between the two of them are ill-advised, but none of our business (or, do you really think you're entitled to know anything any city employee says in any telephone call? - As Florczak said, you're just not entitled to that information.) Pacheco would have been stupid to leave such messages on his phone, when he had zero obligation to keep them, the phone was no longer in his hands, and he's going through a nasty divorce.

I read/watched several stories, and I don't recall that Pacheco hired someone because they were a friend or family. He wasn't involved in the hiring that was contested and overturned. And the folks in the City Manager's office got there on their competence and trustworthiness.

Sandra
11-23-2011, 07:02 PM
It's not about wanting to know everything they say on the phone - it's about using a city owned cell phone for personal business. I don't want to know all the sick, disgusting things they texted to each other. Those phones were for city work, not their personal sexcapades, so they misused city equipment, for one thing, and for another, attempting to hide what they did wasn't an effort to keep things private, it was an effort to cover up what they were doing. In other words, an attempt to deceive. You say it would have been stupid to leave those messages on there, I say it was stupid to put them on there in the first place. He should have used his own personal phones for that, not taxpayer funded ones.

Pacheco hired many people because they were friends or family. Our police chief is one of those. He didn't exactly come highly recommended after the fiasco in Colorado Springs.

You can defend Jerry all you want, but personally, I think keeping him around is bad for the city's reputation - he lost my confidence, and to be honest, so has City Council. I'm truly disappointed in this city's leadership just now - which is sad because I really admired it once upon a time. Just my personal opinion.

west4567
11-23-2011, 08:23 PM
Pacheco hired many people because they were friends or family. Our police chief is one of those. He didn't exactly come highly recommended after the fiasco in Colorado Springs.

You don't know what you're talking about.

west4567
11-23-2011, 08:26 PM
he lost my confidence

Is your confidence something that a city manager should strive for?

west4567
11-23-2011, 08:31 PM
You can defend Jerry all you want, but personally, I think keeping him around is bad for the city's reputation

And therein, we see the genius of the Council-Manager form of government. It ensures that a city manager isn't subjected to the winds of politics, or the latest political pressures either.

Must we all live up to Sandra's latest set of standards? Thank God, No.

west4567
11-23-2011, 08:41 PM
Pacheco hired many people because they were friends or family. Our police chief is one of those. He didn't exactly come highly recommended after the fiasco in Colorado Springs.
.

I worked closely with Velez for a few years; smart. honest. tough. hard-working. principled. Extremely well-educated.

It's slanderous to claim that Velez was hired for any reason other than he would be a good chief.

Do you actually make such a claim?

west4567
11-23-2011, 08:57 PM
. . . Those phones were for city work, not their personal sexcapades, so they misused city equipment . . .

By your authoritarian definition, I can't pick up my office phone and ask my wife what we need from the Kings Sooper for dinner.

large
11-23-2011, 09:02 PM
With all due respect to everyone here . . The Council's wrong, Pacheco is wrong, Chris Nicolls is wrong and it will be the butt of many jokes in the future.

Of course, Jerry Pacheco (nor his associate, Walker) didn't break any of the ordinances or laws Pueblo has on it's books, because they don't have any non fraternization parameters there . . nor are they in any of the job descriptions that they post to qualify hires . . Nor do they have any sort of code of ethics for either the council or the city employees . .

But, without intending to sound "Holier than Thou", those same employees and council members should attempt to stay within the boundaries of common sense . . And few if any have . . as we have seen. Instead, it was a closed door show of CYA for the Council, the City manager and all involved . . On the heels of a Judge's decision that Pacheco and HR was guilty of rigging the hires . . with nothing mentioned about this . .

At this point, the Honey Wagon is full, but no one can really say it smells . .

west4567
11-24-2011, 12:02 AM
Nor do they have any sort of code of ethics for either the council or the city employees . .

it was a closed door show of CYA for the Council, the City manager and all involved . .


Pueblo does, in fact, have a code of ethics. It confines itself, for the most part, to financial matters. As a public servant of several decades, I contend that this is how it should be. One shouldn't have to turn to a code of ethics for dating guidelines; who the City Manager dates is not a matter that is subject to the public's blessing.

And Pacheco's reprimand (which you can be sure that this was) was appropriately held behind closed doors. It's a personnel matter between a boss (Council) and an employee.

west4567
11-24-2011, 12:46 AM
On the heels of a Judge's decision that Pacheco and HR was guilty of rigging the hires . .

HR has very little involvement in the hiring selection; The Civil Service Dept screens the applicants, and is the body to which any appeal is directed. Pacheco's involvement is even less. By the time a hiring decision for this kind of position reaches Pacheco, he's only a rubber stamp. Let's review:


Pepper, the Traffic Engineer, ensures that Darrek is groomed for a position that will be opening; Darrek was recognized as a go-getter a few years ago.
Pepper assembles a panel to conduct interviews; the panel selects Darrek.
Pepper's boss, Earl, the Public Works Director, approves the selection (a rubber-stamp, really - Earl didn't sit in on the interviews)
Jerry Pacheco also approves the selection; more rubber stamp.
James, the other applicant, appeals the selection to the Civil Service Commission, an elected body (not accountable or beholden to Pacheco or Council).
The Civil Service Commission sides with the hiring supervisor, Pepper.
A District Court Judge overrules Pepper and the elected Civil Service Commission. Reason: (1) James requested, but was denied, a continuance. (2) The tape of the Civil Service proceedings was inaudible. (3) James had a better record of taking sick leave than Darrek.


And from this, we're suppose to conclude that Pacheco had the fix in? He's cold-blooded when it comes to hiring qualified people and cutting those who aren't making it. He'd have no reason to get involved.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 06:56 AM
The code of ethics should be confined to finances?

No wonder this entire country is in the mess it's in! Ethics should rule far more than finances, West. And you need to learn to see the bigger picture -this isn't about dating, it's about poor city leadership and low quality management. No wonder Pueblo has such a bad reputation! It'll never get any better with this kind of garbage in our city administration.

Him cheating on his wife, her cheating on her husband then covering it up and rewriting the laws so they can do it. Changing the rules in the middle of the game. Sexy text messages on city mobile phones at taxpayer's expense - how juvenile! Not to mention pornographic. Maybe you don't mind your tax dollars going to that garbage, but I certainly mind! My tax dollars are meant to serve the city, not city admin sexcapades. They should put that on thier own ****ed dime and not parade it about like they're proud of it or they did nothing wrong.

Completely disgusting and ill mannered.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 06:59 AM
Is your confidence something that a city manager should strive for?


Yes, it is - along with every other taxpaying resident here.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 07:07 AM
Must we all live up to Sandra's latest set of standards? Thank God, No.


Oh what a terrible thing it is to have high standards. Just how awful of a person can I be to desire quality leadership in our city government?

It's sad that you don't realize not only how things like this look and how they ruin a city's reputation, but it's even sadder that you don't realize how poor leadership affects the city as a whole. True leadership requires dignity, I see none here at the moment. Do you? Or do you even know what that is?

Sandra
11-24-2011, 07:28 AM
I worked closely with Velez for a few years; smart. honest. tough. hard-working. principled. Extremely well-educated.

It's slanderous to claim that Velez was hired for any reason other than he would be a good chief.



I worked with him too - we both served the city of Colorado Springs together on the same committee while he was Captain. I never said I didn't like him, in fact I also found him to be quite a guy. However, that incident with the disappearing evidence and his vote of no confidence a number of years ago was a real black mark on his record, making him pretty much unhireable anywahere else. How many other candidates had that in their employment records?

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually one for second chances, but why not a lesser position where he could have worked his way up again so he could gain the trust of the people of the city first? The entire process looks like they were going through the motions of accepting applications then suddenly that was all cut off without the process being finished and suddenly Valez has a new job, so we know by this that the other candidates weren't even given the opportunity to be seriously considered, and that was all over the news.

So you tell me what that looks like? It doesn't look that great to me, it looks like the good old boy system, and that's not a trustworthy system. Playing favorites may seem fine to you, but how does that affect the rest of us taxpayers? Where are our checks and balances? Where's the guarantee of fair and impartial leadership, and in the case of the police department, fair and impartial treatment of citizens?

There is a reason why there are processes in place, even in city government, and when those processes are undermined by leadership then leadership loses its focus and rather than serving the people they serve themselves. Do I see this happening here? Tell me that what I'm seeing isn't what I'm seeing. It would be easier for you to pee on my leg and convince me that its rain. I'm not buying it one stinking bit, West.

Yes, I prefer better leadership for my tax dollars. I prefer quality to quantity. And I'm not the only one who does.

And while people like me who feel this way may not raise a big public stink and get our names in the news creating waves for everyone, we do know that there will always be other chances to vote, and in between those times, we can still contact our elected officials and express our disappointment or praise when they do something deserving of it.

west4567
11-24-2011, 08:55 AM
There is a reason why there are processes in place . . .

There is no process for hiring a chief. The City Manager can simply pick one.

It's pretty clear that Pacheco didn't want to choose from the pool of applicants, and Pacheco's not one to let a charade of a process go on any further when he's already decided against choosing from that pool.

With Velez, Pacheco gets a big-city chief for a small-city price, gets someone very well respected within not only the PPD, but law enforcement circles in general, he got someone he trusted, and he got someone he knew would be successful.

west4567
11-24-2011, 09:09 AM
Him cheating on his wife, her cheating on her husband then covering it up and rewriting the laws so they can do it. Changing the rules in the middle of the game. . . . and not parade it about like they're proud of it or they did nothing wrong.

Well, they were one or the other: covering it up, or parading it around.

Pacheco neither broke nor changed laws. And he had no obligation to reorganize the reporting structure between HR and the City Manager's Office. Had he not done so, he'd still be legal and within City policy.

west4567
11-24-2011, 09:22 AM
It's sad that you don't realize not only how things like this look and how they ruin a city's reputation, but it's even sadder that you don't realize how poor leadership affects the city as a whole.

I know exactly how it looks. I'm just saying that Council handled this correctly. Pacheco got chewed out, and probably was told "Resolve this. Soon. - or one of you must go." This was correctly handled behind closed doors.

This is not poor leadership - it's merely a leader who made a mistake.

In the case of Council, they'll take heat for doing the right thing. This was not a firing offense. That's leadership too.

west4567
11-24-2011, 09:49 AM
Yes, it [confidence] is - along with every other taxpaying resident here.

It's important that Council has confidence in Pacheco. If Council sees in him a good city manager, your lack of confidence isn't much of a factor, and shouldn't be. That's why you don't get to vote for city manager - he's just another City employee.

Pacheco is, in fact, a superb city manager - and at such a young age! What makes him so good is that he completely adopts Council's agenda as his own. He does what they want him to do. He fixes the problems they want fixed.

A pretty good number of city managers come into a job with their own vision and agenda, or at least an inability to execute Council's agenda the way Council wants. These Council members know this, and they know they've got an effective guy in Pacheco. That's why he gets a slap on the wrist instead of a pink slip - at least, so far.

large
11-24-2011, 09:50 AM
Couple of points here, west . .

One, within the city as it is almost in any enterprise, hierarchy or corporation, all it takes is a phone call from an upper echelon executive to bend policy. Been there seen that, not just with the City and County of Pueblo, biut in seversal corporations . . And Human Resources( The basic hiring agency, and the one who specifies what a position will require) has a hell of a lot to do with who and where the "Who's" go, in the hiring process . .

I have submitted two applications for positions advertised and they never got to the civil service people. They were shot down in HR . . and that's according to a well placed inside source . . No sour grapes here, because I applied more to find out where the wind was blowing than I did for a job . . . But, your thesis on how it works is "How it's Supposed to work" not how it actually does . .

That being said, again, while I have no proof of this other than outward appearances, The City Council took more time resolving this issue than they have taken on many of their issues that should have requirted at least as much thought and time . . I consider most of what was done or said, more of a CYA action than a discovery process . . .

Secindly, on your last point . . no matter the reason the judge gave, Pacheco and the City lost, which goes back to your first point about Pacheco being within the parameters of the city's laws . . The Judge held that they weren't . . and this apparently wasn't addressed by council . . and perhaps you might be right in that it's a separate issue. On the other hand, as a former executive, had I a manager under me that had all these boils come to a head at once, I'm afraid that he's have to be solid Gold rather than Gold Plated to withstand the pressure to solve all these problems by throwing him under the bus. His absence wouldn't be missed long . . . Because, again, his judgement is basically flawed . . if he (and Walker) cannot see the complications their associations would cause, then he (and she) are not "Executive Material" and should be considered as to have reached their "Levels of Incompetance" (the Peter Principle).

Thus, perhaps it's time, no matter, to start looking for a new Manager, because, as I stated earlier, this one's "Damaged Goods" and will lack creditability in the future when it may be really needed . .

Nonetheless . . Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:09 AM
There is no process for hiring a chief. The City Manager can simply pick one.
Which is exactly what he did.

There was a process in place (allegedly) for hiring a new chief - they started that process rolling when they solicited applications and began an application process. It's just too bad that it was all for show and not for real since Pacheco had already chosen someone. All the time and money that was wasted in that process, not to mention the hopefuls who took the time and trouble to apply then come out here. Who paid for that? Them? The taxpayers? Someone somewhere shelled out some bucks for that.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:15 AM
By your authoritarian definition, I can't pick up my office phone and ask my wife what we need from the Kings Sooper for dinner.


So you don't know the difference between sexting and a grocery list?

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:19 AM
Pacheco neither broke nor changed laws.


No, he was just busily re-writing city policy to allow him to delete city cell phone messages at his own discretion right after it was brought out that he and his mistress were sexting each other. Go figure.

Funny, he says his phone was stolen and that's why he had the messages erased. So how did his wife get ahold of it? She's the one who discovered the messages in the first place, according to what I read in the news. That doesn't sound stolen to me.

west4567
11-24-2011, 10:20 AM
I have submitted two applications for positions advertised and they never got to the civil service people. They were shot down in HR . . But, your thesis on how it works is "How it's Supposed to work" not how it actually does . .

The signs and markings job was subject to Civil Service rules. Most City jobs are, as well. HR can set the qualifications, but has no say in who meets them. Civil Service screens, and tells HR and the hiring authority (Pepper, in this case), who the qualified applicants are. HR subsequently participates in interviews. Civil Service handles appeals.

But there many non-Civil Service positions - let's just call the bunch of them "management" jobs. HR usually manages the hiring process for these positions. Note that these are typically at-will positions. Executive-types can hire anyone they want into such positions at 10:30 this morning, and fire that person at Noon.

That's why Pacheco can implement a selection process for a Chief, and then suspend it and hire who he wants. Can't do that with a corporal.



Nonetheless . . Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
You too!

west4567
11-24-2011, 10:28 AM
So you don't know the difference between sexting and a grocery list?

I know the difference between City business and personal business. State law recognizes this distinction, as well.

City employees have private lives, and I've never known one who didn't have to call the vet, check on the kids, call the auto repair, make a dentist appointment, etc.

Managers have the responsibility to make sure that employees are excessive - an daily hour-long call to your sister won't go on for long.

But the nature of these personal calls aren't anyone's business. Even when they're extra sordid.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:31 AM
This is not poor leadership - it's merely a leader who made a mistake.



Mistakes are unintentional. Cheating on your wife and sexting on your city issued cell phone are not unintentional.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:39 AM
Managers have the responsibility to make sure that employees are excessive - an daily hour-long call to your sister won't go on for long.

But the nature of these personal calls aren't anyone's business. Even when they're extra sordid.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First, when it's on a city issued phone, it's city business. Same with email - employers are often scanning company email for unofficial use. Some things are allowed to slip by - small things like a grocery list once in a while or making a Dentist appointment for the kids.

As far as content being nobody's business - yes it is, when it's paid for with public funds. I don't want to know the filthy content of their sext messages - that's just disgusting, knowing they did it is more than enough information in and of itself and that's all anyone needs to know about it. So while we may not need to know the disgusting details, it is our business that it happened because we, the taxpayers and voters, are the ones paying the bill for it.

While a grocery list once in a while is allowable, sexting is not.

west4567
11-24-2011, 10:40 AM
No, he was just busily re-writing city policy to allow him to delete city cell phone messages

No re-write of this policy occurred. And there's no prohibition against deleting messages.

Pacheco's in the middle of a divorce. His phone's gone. His wife may have it (which makes it no less stolen). Of worse - her attorney may have it. No telling how the attorney will use the information, except that it will be to maximize the damage to Pacheco.

If you were in Pacheco's situation, I'd advise you to have the phone wiped. To advise you anything else would be . . . dumb?

Sandra
11-24-2011, 10:42 AM
No re-write of this policy occurred.


That's not what News 13 has been reporting.

By the way, it's my understanding that he wasn't in the middle of a divorce until all this stuff came out about him cheating on his wife. His wife apparently discovered the messages at a time when she thought they were still happily married. So it wasn't stolen at the time - it's more than obvious that he was trying to cover his butt after his wife found his phone and all the messages. I think that he knows where the phone is, after all, if it's a newer phone, it's GPS enabled. How hard would it be to track it down?

I'd be willing to bet that calling it "stolen" is more a matter of convenience on his part.



- her attorney may have it.


I hope so.



If you were in Pacheco's situation, I'd advise you to have the phone wiped. To advise you anything else would be . . . dumb?


That's a day late and a dollar short. What's "dumb" (as you put it) is the whole affair to begin with, and next, sexting - especially on city issued phones!

west4567
11-24-2011, 10:55 AM
. . . when it's on a city issued phone, it's city business.

That's simply not correct. There's no rule that says City employees can't make personal calls.

State law excludes a number of "records" from being subject to the Open Records Act. Records of a personal nature are not public records. This applies to e-mail as well.

Council can assert that it's entitled to know what those messages contained, but Council is his boss, and he's an at-will employee. I suspect Council knows all it needs to.

You and I could only claim the right to see such messages under the Open Record Act - it doesn't apply here.

west4567
11-24-2011, 11:00 AM
What's "dumb" is the whole affair to begin with, and next, sexting - especially on city issued phones!

No disagreement. Just not a firing offense. Pacheco and Walker may have been looking at this as a last shot at happiness. It can lead people to do dumb things.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 11:01 AM
generally, personal calls are acceptable. Sexting isn't. And it shouldn't have to be a rule that the phones aren't used for sexting, the two so called adults in this situation should have been adult enough to know better. They abused the privilege, so now what? We need a new policy? It's sad that some people just can't seem to think or act for themselves, they need laws and government to do it for them to keep them from abusing privilege. And even then, that doesn't always work. Whatever happened to personal integrity?

Sandra
11-24-2011, 11:04 AM
No disagreement. Just not a firing offense. Pacheco and Walker may have been looking at this as a last shot at happiness. It can lead people to do dumb things.


Glad we can see eye to eye on something (except the firing offense part - I do feel this is a firing offense, or at least a forced leave of absence of some kind - time out chair, etc.).

Although, I must say that true happiness comes from within, not from another person. There are no "last shots" at happiness unless you're on your deathbed, and even so, there's appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior - and this was definitely inappropriate behavior on both of their parts.

Everyone deserves happiness, but the way they go about it defines them more than they realize.

Coming back to edit my post to clarify something: The affair itself may not be a firing issue - I wouldn't fire him for that, although I don't like that they did that. But sexting on city issued cell phones - that deserves an appropriate disciplinary response.

And the nepotism - I don't like that either, but I don't know if I'd fire him for that if it were up to me - I might not if it were an isolated case or two, but there seems to be a pattern developing that doesn't look good, so I think that a more workable solution would be that the city adopt a policy that works on cutting down on that.

I realize that in a city this size where so many people know each other it's difficult not to hire a friend somewhere along the way, but other people need to be given an honest chance, too.

The sexting on the phone, though - that's an abuse of privilege, especially in an age where we're trying to set examples for our youth - we see kids sexting a lot and being sent to juvi for it. Yet these adults can get away with it? How does that look to the kids? There are just so many things wrong with what they did, I don't know where to start to rant about it all, so I'll just leave it at that.

Plus, the other things combined - some of those may not be fireable in and of themselves, but enough stuff adding up isn't a good sign, and combined with the sexting - I think it's time for Jerry to consider a resignation or an extended leave of some kind so he can pull himself together and allow the dust to settle.

large
11-24-2011, 12:59 PM
The signs and markings job was subject to Civil Service rules. Most City jobs are, as well. HR can set the qualifications, but has no say in who meets them. Civil Service screens, and tells HR and the hiring authority (Pepper, in this case), who the qualified applicants are. HR subsequently participates in interviews. Civil Service handles appeals.

But there many non-Civil Service positions - let's just call the bunch of them "management" jobs. HR usually manages the hiring process for these positions. Note that these are typically at-will positions. Executive-types can hire anyone they want into such positions at 10:30 this morning, and fire that person at Noon.

That's why Pacheco can implement a selection process for a Chief, and then suspend it and hire who he wants. Can't do that with a corporal.


You too!

Part of the Judge's decision against Pacheco and the City was that "They" rewrote the qualifications in the Job Description to meet the lesser qualifications of Pacheco's Admin. Assistant's Husband to enable him to obtain the job . . This adbicated the Civil Service Commission's authority. This was evidence and testimony that directed the Decision, according to several accounts and trial records . . Now, "They" seems to be both, Pacheco and the HR dept . . Whom, of course Walker is the director . . Back to the smell . .

And I'll say this once more . . Pacheco will, in the future, become a millstone around the neck of the council . . in more ways than one might imagine . . His judgement, or the Council's confidence in his decisions will be questioned by both Council, the Unions, and the citizens of Pueblo . .

Again, I believe, Jerry Pacheco has "Peter Principled" or reached his Level of Incompetance . . which will become even more apparent as time goes by . .

west4567
11-24-2011, 02:18 PM
Part of the Judge's decision against Pacheco and the City was that "They" rewrote the qualifications in the Job Description to meet the lesser qualifications of Pacheco's Admin. Assistant's Husband to enable him to obtain the job

Pepper changed it. HR endorsed the change. Such changes are common.

You've now put yourself in the awkward (at least for you, I'd surmise) position of siding with a judge who has determined that he gets the final say on who is the best qualified applicant for a non-management City job.

In the private sector, a hiring authority would simply pick the person he or she thinks is the best fit. Resolving such a decision in District Court epitomizes everything wrong with government personnel systems.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 02:58 PM
Pepper changed it. At who's bidding?

large
11-24-2011, 03:36 PM
Pepper changed it. HR endorsed the change. Such changes are common.

You've now put yourself in the awkward (at least for you, I'd surmise) position of siding with a judge who has determined that he gets the final say on who is the best qualified applicant for a non-management City job.

In the private sector, a hiring authority would simply pick the person he or she thinks is the best fit. Resolving such a decision in District Court epitomizes everything wrong with government personnel systems.

And, I agree . . But . . A court decision is a court decision . .

Beyond that, though, Why did Pepper change it? And at who's bidding? Or . . Why?

It was also related in the court records, that the Qualifications for the Job in discussion were changed, literally, "After the Fact" or after the qualifying tests were given and the first candidate was notified. That's how this all came about.

In this case, the Judge stated that it appeared to be the relationship between the City Manager and the Manager's Admin Assistant (and her husband, the center piece of the suit) who had received favorite treatment by the "Chain of Command" . . And again, this is the thing, in my mind, that the Council should have addressed rather than try to bail out of a soap opera that had little or nothing to do with city law and operations . .

As you say, in the private sector, unless ruled by a Union contract (Which, also the city is) Qualifications are generally the hiring or promotional factor, with seniority being the second . . By Union Rules, again, "Generally", Seniority becomes the qualifying factor . . Apparently neither was a consideration in this case . .


For Sandra:

As for personal eMail and messaging on government phones and computers, or for that matter, Corporate phones and computers, who cares? It's been done since businesses and the government decided to pay for their employee's devices . . and personal messages on such devices, according to court decisions, aren't privy to disclosure unless they also involve discussion about something having to do with business . . And even where all messaging done on a company's (or agency's) server is saved, the personal messages will be redacted in review . .

west4567
11-24-2011, 04:09 PM
It was also related in the court records, that the Qualifications for the Job in discussion were changed, literally, "After the Fact" or after the qualifying tests were given and the first candidate was notified. That's how this all came about.

I find no reference to this anywhere.

large
11-24-2011, 04:21 PM
It was part of the first article in the Pueblo Chieftain regarding the Court decision . . I cannot find the quote either, but do remember reading it .

west4567
11-24-2011, 04:22 PM
[Pepper changed it] At who's bidding?

Where's any indication that this was anyone's idea but hers?

To the extent that Earl Wilkinson signed off on it, it was because Pepper convinced him that Sample was the right guy for the job.

The idea that the City Manager would pick up the phone and instruct the Traffic Engineer to change a job spec, and to fix it so his secretary's husband got the job would get laughed at by any manager at the City.

The idea that Pepper would change a job spec to get a hire that she thought was right for the job is, however, very plausible.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 04:30 PM
I just don't see Pepper doing anything like that of her own volition, West. Granted, I don't know her all that well - we spoke a few times when I chaired the Clean Up committee, but she didn't strike me as being the type of individual who would weasel around like that.

Sandra
11-24-2011, 04:32 PM
Large - personal business is one thing - to a degree, but sexting is a completely other ball of wax. What's next? Sex on the conference table? How about during a meeting? Where do we draw the line, then?

large
11-24-2011, 04:34 PM
The idea that the City Manager would pick up the phone and instruct the Traffic Engineer to change a job spec, and to fix it so his secretary's husband got the job would get laughed at by any manager at the City.

The idea that Pepper would change a job spec to get a hire that she thought was right for the job is, however, very plausible.

First paragraph . . That has been done many times in both Pueblo city And Pueblo County Government, and I can name names, but I shan't . .

Regarding the last paragraph, entirely possible, but the City's employees are a very "Small Town" and just about everybody knows everybody . . both horizontally and vertically. When you go around employees for convenience or "Better Qualifications" you're gonna get bit on the ankle more often than not . . not to mention you'll get Union problems . . I remember Filthy Fred's fights with the Unions over placements as well as negotiations . . It was bitter to the end . . and Fred got the last word as far as the Fire Dept. went, he made Bob Drake the Chief . . Now that was Revenge with a capital R . .

west4567
11-24-2011, 04:35 PM
It was part of the first article in the Pueblo Chieftain regarding the Court decision . . I cannot find the quote either, but do remember reading it .

If it happened like that, it's a more serious transgression than anything else I've read about. But this transgression would fall on the Civil Service Commissioners and the Civil Service department.

This is unlikely, but I suppose it's not impossible. Again, the Commissioners are elected by voters. They'll be the first to point that out to you, Pacheco, or Council members. They don't bow to anyone.

large
11-24-2011, 05:51 PM
If it happened like that, it's a more serious transgression than anything else I've read about. But this transgression would fall on the Civil Service Commissioners and the Civil Service department.

This is unlikely, but I suppose it's not impossible. Again, the Commissioners are elected by voters. They'll be the first to point that out to you, Pacheco, or Council members. They don't bow to anyone.


Dunno about that either . . I know of (again) several instances where a phone call from an influential local businessman who served on many of the guidance boards within the Government(s) has opened many doors to those who were possibly unqualified or needed to be in a specific position for any number of reasons . . or was just "A Good Boy" . . .

Even with a population of 155,000, Pueblo is a "Small Town" . . and still practices a lot of small town things . . It's not all bad, but things like Pacheco's pecadellos are to be expected once in a while . .

And honestly, I'm not necessarily put out by Pacheco's actions, other than as a person of his position, he should have known the position a situation like this puts him and the council in . . Thus, my doubts about his judgement or management capabilities (50% of his job in managing people) and worse, how the City Council handled it . .

Basically, you are discussing how it SHOULD be and is SUPPOSED to be . . On the other hand, I'm speaking of experiencing both in person and by many friends, both past and present, who have worked as a City Employee in many stations . . Streets, Transportation, the Shops, as Policemen and Firemen . . It's not necessarily always run like it's supposed to . . Most of the city's (as well as the county's) employees are hired and promoted in the manner you have outlined and then some aren't . . Qualified people are passed over for someone who's connected . . To whomever . . But it happens and in most of those cases, the job description is re-written to qualify that one candidate. Sure they advertise it horizontally, but everyone who might be generally eligible knows that they don't have a chance . . And most won't make waves because the backripple will drown your chances down the road . . And "Most" know that!

west4567
11-25-2011, 08:26 AM
I just don't see Pepper doing anything like that of her own volition . . . she didn't strike me as being the type of individual who would weasel around like that.

Changing a job spec isn't weaseling. If you're the hiring authority, and you know of an excellent applicant who doesn't have a CDL, you may drop that requirement, or change it to specify "must obtain CDL within six months."

Nothing illegal or unethical about it. If asked, your rationale is the truth: "I know of an applicant who I'd like to interview, but he doesn't have a CDL yet."

Loren Swelk
11-25-2011, 08:34 AM
Nothing illegal or unethical about it. If asked, your rationale is the truth: "I know of an applicant who I'd like to interview, but he doesn't have a CDL yet."

The job specs were written for a reason, to give the candidate best qualified to do a specific job the opportunity be hired and use his/her skills. If you changed several words in your above quote you will have a statement closer to what happened I believe.

"I know an applicant who I'd like to hire, but he isn't qualified for the job".

Also thanks to the webmaster for tweaking the system so I can access the Forum from the road. I have been blocked whenever I am travelling, which has been quite often this year.

Sandra
11-25-2011, 09:19 AM
Changing a job spec isn't weaseling. If you're the hiring authority, and you know of an excellent applicant who doesn't have a CDL, you may drop that requirement, or change it to specify "must obtain CDL within six months."



It most certainly can be! To use your example - there is state law concerning CDL and some jobs - you can't operate certain vehicles for commercial reasons without one - such as driving a limo. If the job requires a CDL, then there is probably a state law about that, and in such a case, allowing the applicant to wait for 6 months places too many people at risk.

Personally, a smart person and good leader, rather than wasting company money by enabling lazy people, would say, "Come back when you have your CDL".

Like Loren said, job specs are written for a reason.

Benign changes may not be a big deal, for example requiring an applicant to have a High School Diploma can be changed to requiring a G.E.D. with little or no consequence. But to drop the requirement of having earned one or the other completely greatly reduces the quality of applicants, which will then be reflected in the quality of the job performed by the hiree who has little or no education.

west4567
11-25-2011, 03:43 PM
The job specs were written for a reason, to give the candidate best qualified to do a specific job the opportunity be hired and use his/her skills. If you changed several words in your above quote you will have a statement closer to what happened I believe.

"I know an applicant who I'd like to hire, but he isn't qualified for the job".


Could be (I don't think so). But the suspicion in these circles seems not to be that she just favored and hired an unqualified person.

The suspicion seems to be:

Pacheco got the Public Works director to instruct the Traffic Engineer to hire someone that wasn't qualified.
The HR Department was in on this plan;
Then, the elected Civil Service Commission was brought into the plan, and they went along with it.

west4567
11-25-2011, 03:54 PM
It most certainly can be! To use your example - there is state law concerning CDL and some jobs - you can't operate certain vehicles for commercial reasons without one - such as driving a limo. If the job requires a CDL, then there is probably a state law about that, and in such a case, allowing the applicant to wait for 6 months places too many people at risk.

You're talking about breaking rules. I'm talking about how a public sector manager deals with an archaic and inefficient hiring system WITHOUT breaking rules.

A lot of the rules are not set up for the purpose of hiring the best applicant, but rather to protect seniority rights of existing employees.

large
11-25-2011, 05:39 PM
Could be (I don't think so). But the suspicion in these circles seems not to be that she just favored and hired an unqualified person.

The suspicion seems to be:

Pacheco got the Public Works director to instruct the Traffic Engineer to hire someone that wasn't qualified.
The HR Department was in on this plan;
Then, the elected Civil Service Commission was brought into the plan, and they went along with it.


The "suspicion seems to be" . .

I really don't think it was that complex . . A desire was probably brought up at a social gathering or lunch, and the drift was gotten, and executed with a couple of "Hey, Buddy" phone calls . . That's pretty much how it's been done for years . . When I went to the COG Planning Dept. years ago, there was no opening, no announcements, or bids . . one day I was a "Designer", the next, I was a "Planner" . . Because that's what my old Boss wanted and my new Boss wanted . . The old one was private sector, the new one, public sector . . and one phone call and a lunch . .

Granted, the job descriptions are designed with internal job security and promotions in mind . . Part of it's Union requirements and part plain old civil service boilerplate . . and were it executed by rote, every time, you'd never hear of anything like the current soap opera . . but humans run it, they game it and sometimes they get caught . .

Didja have a Great Turkey Day?

west4567
11-25-2011, 06:32 PM
Didja have a Great Turkey Day?

Yes, thanks. took the week off and relaxed.

Went vegetarian yesterday. I found out that if you load up a plate with enough stuff, and you hardly notice the difference.

large
12-03-2011, 08:09 AM
OK, here we go again . . City Manager or City Council? . .

For years, dunno how far back, I'd guess when the Council form of Government was chartered, the City Executives were required to live within the city limits of Pueblo . . Not "Expected to" . . nor, as far as I know, paid per diem, moving expenses or relocated at the City's expense.

They went through that fuss with Lee Evett, who when hired, moved to Beulah, and ended up constructing a monstrosity on the south side, got in a fight with both the contractor and the bank and then left . .

But . . Now it's reported in the paper that the city has given Pacheco $1400 for "moving expenses" and Pacheco readily admits that he used it to pay the first two month's rent on his Condo on the HARP . . . In another news report by KOAATV, it is reported that he was paid $7000 and was also stated that he spent the money, not on moving but paying rent . . Which would amount to "Per Diem" rather than "Relocation Expenses" and as far as I know, isn't legal within the confines of the charter.

More discussion?

Loren Swelk
12-03-2011, 09:29 AM
Given the bitter divorce and the underlying reasons therein he probably got out with the clothes he was wearing and what he could quickly fit in the trunk of his city owned vehicle. KOAA is claiming he told them he was using the entire $7,000 allotted by the generous City Council to pay the rent on his new "love shack", though now I doubt if Marisa will be dropping by for a nooner. He will have to cull the rest of the city employee roster looking for a replacement. It is only a matter of time until this ugly mess is plastered all over the media again.

large
12-03-2011, 09:58 AM
Back when Pacheco ran (actually still does) the Planning Department, I suspicioned that he was a snake in the grass . . And that seems to be kind of true, albiet, not the smartest snake out there . .

My belief is that he's "Peter Principled" himself . . or "Reached his level of incompetance" . . As the Planning Director, he was close, as the City Manager, he's easily reached that point . . .

large
12-06-2011, 06:57 AM
So which is it? Today's Chieftain had an article about the Council giving City manager Jerry Pacheco $7000 for "Moving Expenses" . .

Question is, based upon this article and it's inferences, Pacheco may have been required by City Ordinance to live within Pueblo City Limits (As I have alluded in a couple of posts) or he wasn't by the wording of his contract he took with the City upon becoming the City Manager . .

Here's the parts that are "Confusing': (read the whole article @
http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/pacheco-to-get-monies-for-move-into-town/article_d1899052-1fe2-11e1-a91f-0019bb2963f4.html)


As Pacheco noted after leaving the executive session, his current employment contract doesn't require him to live in the city, but he did so at the request of Council President Ray Aguilera last month.

And then . .


Pacheco and his family were living in Pueblo County when he was promoted to city manager in late 2008 and council had allowed him to continue to live outside the city on a conditional basis during the slump in the local housing market. His contract as manager has had a $7,000 allowance for moving costs since he took the job.

So, the Council (or their agents) either waived a city ordinance when they wrote the contract or there isn't one? And they put in a $7000 "Moving Expense" for what reason, if there wasn't an ordinance . . ? Did Lee Evett, Dave Gallo and all of the prior City Managers get this little "Signing Bonus"?

Loren Swelk
12-06-2011, 10:05 AM
To heck with the employment contract, as I understand it the City Charter requires that the City Manager live within the city limits and I do not believe that the City Council can just waive a portion of the City Charter because of a "slump in the housing market". What part of the Charter are they going to waive next? Since the Chieftain wants to sweep all of this under the rug and for it to go away, maybe one of the electronic media reporters will look further into it. Now that I think about it, what other articles of the City Charter has this council violated? The city attorney is not going to call foul. As we have seen, he is complicent and works for Pacheco.. As they say, "jobs are hard to find in Pueblo".

large
12-06-2011, 10:16 AM
I corrected my post above to say:


Question is, based upon this article and it's inferences, Pacheco may have been required by City Ordinance to live within Pueblo City Limits (As I have alluded in a couple of posts) or he wasn't by the wording of his contract he took with the City upon becoming the City Manager . .

That being said, I think you're correct, in that the City Council cannot "Waive" an ordinance or part of the City Charter out of convenience to either themselves or a City Employee . . and up to Pacheco, I think they held the City Managers to that . . and as you say, the City Attorney cannot "Contract" around that item in the Charter.

But then I could be wrong . . I have been before . .

large
12-09-2011, 07:01 AM
Well, the City (management, anyway) settled for the "Half a loaf settlement" . . not, apparently wanting to make anyone mad, the City (Jerry Pacheco, his Administrative Assistant, Pepper Whitleaf and the Civil Service Commission) just "Created" another slot in the city's Sign Shop . . Instead of putting the "Wrongly Promoted" Sample back where he was, they simply made another position in the sign shop for the Plaintiff in the Union's case, and paid Matuzak back pay to the tune of $5,700 and the Union's legal fees of $6,300 . .

An article in today's Chieftain also said that Matuzak would be working "Under" Sample, which, were I Matuzak, I would object to mightly . .

Reason being, had it not been for the misbehaviour of the City and it's Human Resources Department, (as well as those named in the first parenthesis) Matuzak would have the "First" position in the position and would have seniority over anyone brought into the sign shop if more positions were created . .

I dunno, but I'm guessing that this isn't over yet . . Even though it was done within the agreement and settlement by the plaintiff Matuzak . . And, of course, the City, in it's press release denied any nepotism or failure to follow their own Civil service Commission rulesets . .

Loren Swelk
12-09-2011, 09:46 AM
I am surprised that the judge accepted this, all it did was pay off the affected parties and leave everyone to claim their innocence. All it did was to allow Pacheco/Whitlef, et. al. to claim their malfeasance was in reality only misfeasance.

large
12-09-2011, 10:09 AM
Dunno, if I was Matuzak, I'd sure be pissed . . Where he should be the Senior man in the department or shop, fully qualified as per the first Job Description or requirement, and, down the line, being the "Junior" will affect his pay and benefits, not to mention, should there be a RIF, he'll be the first out the door . . Basically, he's not much better off than he was before the suit was filed . . maybe worse off, because again, in the case of a budget driven RIF, a position that was created to solve a problem can be dissolved just as easy, with Matuzak being the loser . .

So in the end, The guy they (Pacheco, Whitlef, et al) put in is still there, is the senior man, has a man that's been trained properly working under him for the CYA factor and the citizens get to pay for replacing whoever comes in and assumes Matuzak's former job position and we have two guys in a shop that originally had one . . .

Bottom line, either the Judge is dumber than a box of rocks or there was something in his dismissal besides justice . .

west4567
12-09-2011, 08:31 PM
Reason being, had it not been for the misbehaviour of the City and it's Human Resources Department, (as well as those named in the first parenthesis) Matuzak would have the "First" position in the position and would have seniority over anyone brought into the sign shop if more positions were created . .

Your argument describes precisely the way many jurisdictions look at hiring. It won't be based on who the hiring authority thinks is best for the job, or who really wowed the interview panel. It will be based on civil service scores and seniority (some of which are entirely unrelated to qualifications).

As a 4-decade public servant, three of which have been at the local government level, I contend that you are defending a system which has led to most of the screwed-up government we all normally agree about.

I guess you can argue, "Well. That's the system, and we need to follow it." Yeah. I hear that a lot.

large
12-10-2011, 08:56 AM
Actually, west, I'm not defending it at all. However, it is what it is, and that's how it is . . . And . . the judge should know that.

Basically 90% of union shops work on the Seniority system. The oldest gets the consideration, no matter the qualifications. If the Senior Man can't do the job, it goes to the next in line of seniority until they eliminate all but the man best qualified for the job. And that could take up to a year if you have a large shop, not to mention all the screwups the sorting process would have . .

You have to remember, I have had a pretty good background in management as a VP of a construction company, as well as in corporate management a couple of times . . And having been employed by the City and county of Pueblo back aways, I understand the system.

It's not what I prefer, but it's reality.

But, according to even Whitlef herself, Matuzak had been previously trained for and was the best qualifier for the Job. Right up to the point that the City Manager's Admin Assistant (Secretary) expressed a desire to have her husband put in the job instead . . Then, qualifications were adjusted and he was interviewed and given the job. After which he was trained by the person holding the job and was retiring . . This is according to some of the court notes . . Thus, he wasn't even the most qualified for it.

Which, again, makes one ask, "What the Hell was the Judge thinking?"

And I still say, Matuzak got screwed. The fact that they left a chocolate on his pillow means nothing . .

west4567
12-10-2011, 11:45 AM
. . . according to even Whitlef herself, Matuzak had been previously trained for and was the best qualifier for the Job.

I haven't seen any reference to this. It was Sample - not Matuzak - that she groomed for the job. The judge said Matuzak had outscored Sample by a single point on the experience/training scale. Whittlef said Sample was superior in the interviews.

And the way the system works at the City, the hiring authority and interview panel look at all the factors, and pick the best candidate for the job.

I read in an earlier post that the testing process was reopened to allow Sample to compete. If so, that's getting pretty shady. But I didn't see that in news reports. (Edit: In retrospect, this is not correct. If the Civil Service Commission doesn't send three qualified applicants to be considered, the hiring authority has the option of restarting the process)

Without that element of shadiness, Whittlef was merely hiring the best applicant that the hiring system would allow her to hire.

large
12-10-2011, 12:04 PM
I haven't seen any reference to this.

Perhaps I read the article wrong, but the article I spoke of in post #89 referred to the process . . or maybe they got it wrong . . dunno . .

Point being, the Court ruled that the City (Pacheco, Whitlef and the Civil service Commission) got it wrong . . Then allowed them to get it more wrong in the settlement . .

Simply put, IF . . Matuzak was qualified for the job in the sign shop, by one point or a hundred, and the persons named above then changed the Job requirements and qualifications after the fact, in order to hire a specific and preferred person . . And the Judge said they did wrong, then Sample should be demoted to his previous position, Matuzak put into the position he qualified and interviewed for, and then, if the City could justify it, create a second position in the sign Shop, and then write a new job description, interview, test, and hire the qualified person, hopefully, Mr. Sample . .

That's how it's supposed to work . . So far, it hasn't even come close . .

west4567
12-10-2011, 02:28 PM
Simply put, IF . . Matuzak was qualified for the job in the sign shop, by one point or a hundred, and the persons named above then changed the Job requirements and qualifications after the fact, in order to hire a specific and preferred person . . And the Judge said they did wrong, then Sample should be demoted to his previous position, Matuzak put into the position he qualified and interviewed for, and then, if the City could justify it, create a second position in the sign Shop, and then write a new job description, interview, test, and hire the qualified person, hopefully, Mr. Sample . .

That's how it's supposed to work . . So far, it hasn't even come close . .

I don't think anyone's told me of a single regulation that Whittlef didn't follow. And, hypothetically, let's say Whittlef's years of working with Matuzak led her to conclude that he's not the right fit. Isn't she then obligated to do whatever is allowed by the system to pursue the right person?

This Civil Service Commission reviewed the hire, and found that it was proper. A judge reviewed the Civil Service decision, and disagreed. He cited violations of rules that aren't rules. It's legal to groom employees. It's legal to decide who gets trained in what. It's legal to change job descriptions. These things are not only legal, they are necessary practices. If there's evidence that Whittlef did these things simply to hire her boss's boss's secretary's husband, I haven't seen it.

The judge also drew a conclusion that, on the surface at least, he is unqualified to draw: That Matuzak had a "superior work performance" to Sample's.

large
12-10-2011, 02:57 PM
You're arguing apples and oranges here . . I really don't give a **** about how it went down, other than, if everything is so squeaky clean, why did they backtrack and "CREATE" a new position in the sign shop as part of the settlement or agreement to get the Judge to dismiss?

It doesn't pass the smell test . .

And, I do know how Unions work. I've belonged to the Operating Engineers, The Steelworker's Union and the Brotherhood of Railroad Brakemen Union . . As a City/County planner I was never asked to join ASFCME or SEIU, but I did understand the workplace rules.

And, I know how the City of Pueblo's civil service works . . It's still not WHAT you know . . .

Anytime a deal like this gets to the courtroom, used to be some department head would get it in the @ss. What has changed is Management and the employees playing stinky finger . . That was a big time no-no when I was there . . Simply because of problems like all of this . .

west4567
12-10-2011, 03:48 PM
. . . Anytime a deal like this gets to the courtroom . . .

This "court" part is just part of the appeal process, in a very abnormal (but typical for government) hiring system.

From the City Charter:
"If the employee desires, he may take the complaint to the Chairman of
the Civil Service Commission and be given a hearing by the Commission within five (5) days. The decisions of the Civil Service Commission on appeals shall be final unless reversed by the District Court"

Therein lies part of the problem: A personnel system that actually endorses a role for a District Court.

This invites a judge to substitute his own unqualified opinion for that of a certified and experienced professional in the field.

west4567
12-10-2011, 03:58 PM
why did they backtrack and "CREATE" a new position in the sign shop as part of the settlement or agreement to get the Judge to dismiss?

You're assuming that Sample didn't deserve the position, and that Matuzak did. I'm assuming that a hiring authority is trying to hire the best person for the position, and that person was Sample.

That being the case, the City figured out a way to comply with the Judge, but still not screw Sample.

And it has the added benefit of leaving the City in control of the structure of it's organization, and Whittlef in charge of her own department.

Bravo.

large
12-10-2011, 04:17 PM
This "court" part is just part of the appeal process, in a very abnormal (but typical for government) hiring system.

From the City Charter:
"If the employee desires, he may take the complaint to the Chairman of
the Civil Service Commission and be given a hearing by the Commission within five (5) days. The decisions of the Civil Service Commission on appeals shall be final unless reversed by the District Court"

Therein lies part of the problem: A personnel system that actually endorses a role for a District Court.

This invites a judge to substitute his own unqualified opinion for that of a certified and experienced professional in the field.

Look at how many times THAT'S happened . . Generally it never makes it past the Department head and the griever . . and there's good reason. Upper management doesn't want to hear about it . . and they don't want the press or media talking about any of it . .

Matuzak had more to ***** about than a one point difference in test scores, or it would have never gotten to the Civil Service Commission or the Courtroom . . They could have settled it quickly, just like they finally did . . not to mention the Union's involvement . . which also cost the city over $6000. There's more than meets the eye here . .

west4567
12-10-2011, 05:39 PM
There's more than meets the eye here . .

Maybe. I'm doubtful only because so many good guys would have to be complicit for a fix to be in.

I don't know Pacheco very well, but he struck me as tough, fair, with a fair amount of ice water in his veins. He didn't strike me as someone who would mess with such a small-fry affair, but he also struck me as someone who was entirely disciplined, and who wouldn't have gotten involved in his BIG-TIME affair. That was bad form, as is the out-of-City residency.

Sandra
12-10-2011, 06:10 PM
Fooled you, didn't he?:rofl:

large
12-10-2011, 07:03 PM
Maybe. I'm doubtful only because so many good guys would have to be complicit for a fix to be in.

I don't know Pacheco very well, but he struck me as tough, fair, with a fair amount of ice water in his veins. He didn't strike me as someone who would mess with such a small-fry affair, but he also struck me as someone who was entirely disciplined, and who wouldn't have gotten involved in his BIG-TIME affair. That was bad form, as is the out-of-City residency.

I dunno how it is now, but very little changes, just different people doing it, and back when, the "Good Ole Boys" ran the show from "The Bird Watchers" . . and then, later on, from Patti's Restaurant in the back on Thursday mornings . . After Fred retired, a whole new bunch of people assumed the powers . . But most policy is settled before it ever gets to a Council Work session still . . That's just how it is . . . It's Human Nature, game the system to make it work for YOU . .

As I've said, Pacheco reached his level of incompetence when he took the job of City Manager . . As for the philandering, while, I suppose, it don't make him no bad guy, but it sure as hell doesn't make him one of the sharper knives in the drawer . . Because, a good manager doesn't screw the hired help . . It will always come back to bite him in one way or another . .

west4567
12-11-2011, 01:02 AM
After Fred retired, a whole new bunch of people assumed the powers . .

They're gone. Pacheco cleaned house, and there's only 2 or 3 directors (out of perhaps 15) that remain from pre-Pacheco days.

This house-cleaning is a large part of the support he has from Council, IMHO.

large
12-11-2011, 09:34 AM
They're gone. Pacheco cleaned house, and there's only 2 or 3 directors (out of perhaps 15) that remain from pre-Pacheco days.

This house-cleaning is a large part of the support he has from Council, IMHO.

Say it again . . Very little changes, just different people doing it.

And apparently, if all those names were changed, it has been reported that there are at least seven City Employees "related" to Pacheco and using the example we've been discussing for a couple of weeks, apparently you don't have to be "Related" but just "Connected" . .

So . . Nothing much changed except the names . . .

west4567
12-11-2011, 09:59 AM
Say it again . . Very little changes, just different people doing it.

And apparently, if all those names were changed, it has been reported that there are at least seven City Employees "related" to Pacheco

Pacheco has no power and no ability (and I suspect, no legitimate reason) to get rid of the people you're referring to. Many were there before he was.

But he's got all the power in the world to get rid of the muckety-mucks, and what I witnessed was that he demanded high performance from people in such positions.

large
12-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Pacheco has no power and no ability (and I suspect, no legitimate reason) to get rid of the people you're referring to. Many were there before he was.

But he's got all the power in the world to get rid of the muckety-mucks, and what I witnessed was that he demanded high performance from people in such positions.

On the relatives and friends, of course he has as much power as he wants to have . . again, a phone call to the right department head can and will roll a head. Once again, I must remind you that I've also been there and done that . . On the other hand, Jerry would have no reason to can an employee just because they were either related or a friend. That's a risk upper management must take when Mustanging employees. And, normally, one would pay little attention to this in the job pool . . By the latter, I mean that when you bring a manager up through the ranks, it's often hard for him to exert authority because, he was a friend and co-worker before promotion . . Suddenly, he's an @sshole . .

But . . we have gone through the chain of procedures on Civil Service Rules, ending up in court, something that seldom happens in this city, and gotten a ruling that stated that Mr. Pacheco (and a department Head) was guilty of Nepotism and measures were to be taken to rectify the situation . . Thus, one, naturally, begins to look behind all the other doors to see what lies there . .

Lessee, here's the scorecard . . We have Pacheco Guilty of Nepotism (and it wasn't even a relative) and almost at the same time he's the star of a Soap Opera where his wife steals his city furnished smart phone and finds out he's dipping in the pickleslicer . . causing the City Council to look at this harder than they have looked at any of their really important issues, (several of which they got wrong) and then pay him $7 large to move into the city, which was a Charter requirement from gitgo . .

Now, why wouldn't I believe that Pacheco and his cohorts are 100% sterling?

You know, at best, I'm a skeptic, bordering upon 99% cynical . .

Sandra
12-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Pacheco has no power and no ability (and I suspect, no legitimate reason) to get rid of the people you're referring to. Many were there before he was.

But he's got all the power in the world to get rid of the muckety-mucks, and what I witnessed was that he demanded high performance from people in such positions.
You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth in your last post. First you say he has no power or ability to get rid of anyone, but then you state that many were there before he was. But they aren't since, right? I'm willing to bet there's a good reason for that.

Then you contend that he does have the power to get rid of "muckety mucks". Who determines whether someone is a muckety muck?

So either he does have power or he doesn't. Which is it?

west4567
12-12-2011, 09:53 PM
You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth in your last post. First you say he has no power or ability to get rid of anyone, but then you state that many were there before he was. But they aren't since, right? I'm willing to bet there's a good reason for that.

Then you contend that he does have the power to get rid of "muckety mucks". Who determines whether someone is a muckety muck?

So either he does have power or he doesn't. Which is it?

Muckety-mucks are defined in the salary scheduled. They're listed as "class C." Pacheco has the authority to hire/fire any of them (with only a couple exempted) on a whim. He's got zero power to fire anyone else, and extremely limited power to hire. None of his family members are muckety-mucks.

Never said he had "no power or ability to get rid of anyone."

west4567
12-12-2011, 10:12 PM
On the relatives and friends, of course he has as much power as he wants to have . . again, a phone call to the right department head can and will roll a head.

This is simply not correct. Any such attempt would not make it to a court room before the employee was reinstated.


To fire an employee for cause, you must have proof. You want to fire an employee for drug use - you better have a test. Stealing? -prove it. Sick leave abuse -What's his doctor say?
To fire an employee for poor performance, you must show a history of poor evaluations - a single bad evaluation won't do it, with the possible exception of a probationary employee; makes little difference, it is such a rarity.
Firing an employee under the guise of "lay-offs" activates the bumping process; Seniority = bulletproof.


The City Manager has plenty of power with respect to the department heads, and almost no power over a department head's subordinates.

large
12-13-2011, 06:55 AM
This is simply not correct. Any such attempt would not make it to a court room before the employee was reinstated.


To fire an employee for cause, you must have proof. You want to fire an employee for drug use - you better have a test. Stealing? -prove it. Sick leave abuse -What's his doctor say?
To fire an employee for poor performance, you must show a history of poor evaluations - a single bad evaluation won't do it, with the possible exception of a probationary employee; makes little difference, it is such a rarity.
Firing an employee under the guise of "lay-offs" activates the bumping process; Seniority = bulletproof.


The City Manager has plenty of power with respect to the department heads, and almost no power over a department head's subordinates.

There's your world, and then there's the real world . . If you're in management, and you want someone "Gone" or demoted, even in today's litigous society, it can be done . . although it generally requires a "conspiracy" . . Which, again, usually starts with a phone call or is a subject over a business lunch . . As does the opposite . . and even in union shops, it happens far more than most think . . It just takes a little more effort on the part of the actors.

And proving that You've been "Railroaded" is a lot harder than being Railroaded . .

On the Seniority thing . . that's what I was trying to make you (and any other reader) understand about how Matuzak got screwed . . He's Junior to the guy whom the court said was put there unjustly. A RIF comes, and he's the loser . .

But, in the overall scheme of things, there are, most of the time, little of this going on. Why? because it's a real pain in the @ss to everyone in upper management when it's done . . there's always the chance that the guy that gets railraoded will actually go to court and win, as the case with Matuzak shows, but most often, especially in times like this, you're better off going with the flow and not making waves . . That's what management most often counts on . .

And the City's civil servants, while watching attrition shrinking their ranks, generally aren't going to get on somebody's sh*t list over a promotion, no matter how unjust . . A bad job is better than no job in times like this . . Thus, I'm sure, Management felt that they could pull this one off . . they didn't . .

west4567
12-13-2011, 08:17 AM
On the Seniority thing . . that's what I was trying to make you (and any other reader) understand about how Matuzak got screwed . . He's Junior to the guy whom the court said was put there unjustly. A RIF comes, and he's the loser .

There are some circumstances under which Sample would stay where he is and Matuzak would be demoted, but in a major RIF that eliminated both positions, Matuzak would still have a good job and Sample would be gone.

If there were such a RIF right now, Matuzak would return to his previous position, bumping out anyone who has less total years of service than he. He has a lot, so it would be hard for Matuzak to lose his job. But Sample would return to Parks where, as a probationary employee, he has bumping rights only over entry-level park employee hired after summer of 2011. He'd probably be gone.

west4567
12-13-2011, 08:43 AM
There's your world, and then there's the real world . .


My world is based on quite a few years in this real world we've been discussing.
It's based on several hires over those years, and experience with the Civil Service process of providing applicants.
It's based the experience of dealing with a handful of adverse personnel actions, and a case or two of invoking the seniority system.
It's based on attending a half dozen or so Civil Service meetings.
It's based on knowing, over the years, who got fired and why. And a lot more often than that, why someone COULDN'T be fired or demoted.
It's based on creating and revising job specs, and negotiating these changes with a few of the various entities we're discussing.
It's based on participating in a substantial number of interview panels.


It's not based on what goes on at the County, or what happens to contract employees, or a newspaper article about an affair or a single poor court decision, or a morning breakfast at Patti's that no longer occurs.

That's my world.

Funny how such real experience and actual knowledge of how the system works can be so severely discounted, that I'm to believe it was all an illusion.

large
12-13-2011, 10:59 AM
You still haven't explained how any of this should (or could) have happened within the ruleset you are posting . .

By logic as well as policy, a probationary employee should never be considered over a qualified senior employee . . especially in a union shop . . it's a quick way to a hearing at the least, as well as bad managerial policy, and what you insist cannot happen, did . .

There may be no more breakfasts at Patti's but you're not going to convince me that the same old crap that happened in the past isn't still happening . . Like I said, Same number of people doing this sh*t now as there ever was, just different people doing it . .

Just like Pacheco getting a City Charter Law "Waived" and then getting paid $7 large to move . . you're kidding me, right? Wrong, not only was Pacheco granted special considerations, he admittedly used his "Moving" expenses to pay the rent on his new digs . . You see, things aren't always the way they're supposed to be, not in the private sector and not in the public sector . . cut and dried is a perception, not a reality . .

Loren Swelk
12-13-2011, 11:15 AM
There may be no more breakfasts at Patti's


Pacheco's use of city funds to pay his rent was passed last night on the consent agenda with no comment or discussion from any council member. if they didn't meet at Patti's to discuss this, then where?

west4567
12-13-2011, 01:20 PM
Pacheco's use of city funds to pay his rent was passed last night on the consent agenda with no comment or discussion from any council member. if they didn't meet at Patti's to discuss this, then where?

The $7,000 was discussed (and approved) in 2009, in Council Chambers. Whether or not rent qualifies as a relocation expense was also discussed in Council Chambers, on December 5.

Loren Swelk
12-13-2011, 01:31 PM
The $7,000 was discussed (and approved) in 2009, in Council Chambers. Whether or not rent qualifies as a relocation expense was also discussed in Council Chambers, on December 5.

I agree it was discussed on 12/5 with no action taken. However when it comes up on the consent agenda with no further comment or to give the council members one last chance to explain or posture then it appears to me that there was a final discussion held sometime between 12/5 and 12/12 somewhere.

west4567
12-13-2011, 01:34 PM
By logic as well as policy, a probationary employee should never be considered over a qualified senior employee

And therein lies the union approach (and all to frequently, government's approach) to employment policy. If you think government employees suck, now you know a big part of the reason.

Fortunately, that is not the City's policy. Positions can be opened to competition, and the best applicant can be selected. Not every position is filled this way, but most probably are.

west4567
12-13-2011, 01:41 PM
. . . when it comes up on the consent agenda with no further comment or to give the council members one last chance to explain or posture then it appears to me that there was a final discussion held sometime between 12/5 and 12/12 somewhere.


This was probably fully hashed out on the 5th. It was an executive session - no action can be taken during an executive session.

Anyone, including you, can pull any item off of the consent agenda. From that, you minimally get a staff report and a vote. Discussion is not mandatory, but they usually don't pass up the opportunity.

west4567
12-13-2011, 01:57 PM
You still haven't explained how any of this should (or could) have happened within the ruleset you are posting . .


Certainly, I did. This is a case of a hiring authority choosing the person to fill a position. I haven't heard the rule that she violated. I've told you how the screening of applicants takes place, and how job descriptions are changed all the time. I've told you of the minimal role the HR department has in the screening of applicants, and of the interview panels. I've explained the role of the Civil Service Commission, and even the role of the District Court.

I suspect the Court's decision is flawed, based on blame being placed on Pacheco (for "nepotism," no less - when no relative of his was even involved). But the judge wrote a 30-page decision, and all I've seen is a reporter's 1-paragraph summary. The judge could be right-on, and the reporter (or editor) simply neglected to publish a few key facts.

If someone has a link to the decision, please post it.

large
12-13-2011, 02:29 PM
I've told you how the screening of applicants takes place, and how job descriptions are changed all the time. I've told you of the minimal role the HR department has in the screening of applicants, and of the interview panels.

Not so much . . They do not "change job descriptions all the time" . . I know for a fact that in three recent cases they failed to get the better applicant, based upon experience and history and instead got an educated idiot, preferring a degreed but totally inexperienced person for the job(s) . .

Had they dropped the AA requirement (in one case) and the BA in the other two, and used experience on the job equivalents (which Civil Service Rules allow) they would have gotten far better job performance from their candidates . . That's Fact . . and again, I'd name names, but we're on the net and that's frowned upon .

Requirement and qualification rules are changed ONLY when a specific person is in mind for the position they want to fill . . and that's Fact, also . .

The three instances I've put forth includes one position advertised by the County, so it's not just a City Civil Service issue . .

The problem with the arbitrary rewriting of the qualifications ruleset is, while it does, sometimes fit the candidate for the job, it's usually done to fit the criteria for hiring an inside ringer . . Just as we've seen here . . And while neither of us has read the entire Judge's Decision, you're telling me that there's nothing wrong with tailoring job descriptions, and nobody in the city or county's HR departments do this to favor a particular candidate, because, the Civil Service Commission won't allow it . .

In some cases I also believe that the requirements change per interviewee, because, again, I've known qualified, sometimes even over qualified candidates go through the interview and fail miserably, yet the successful candidate knew less than anything about the job he was to assume . . and I know about 17 city (and former) employees that will vouch for that.

Back to the bottom line. The City and County both, hire and promote the people they want hired and promoted in spite of the EEO rulesets in place . . simply because they can. You apply, you test, you interview, and anyplace in the line, they can drop you with nothing more than a "Sorry" . . or a letter saying you didn't meet their qualifications . . and a guy on the "inside" is all of a sudden working in a position you were well qualified for . . That happens, with a pretty fair regularity . .

large
12-14-2011, 08:09 AM
But it doesn't matter because all our bickering, quibbling and opining isn't going to change much . .

IF . . City Council can waive City Law when they choose to, for the convenience of either themselves or an employee or executive, then we really shouldn't worry about how employees are hired or the ruleset they are supposed to follow . . . That should be the least of our worries . .

Loren Swelk
12-14-2011, 09:44 AM
But it doesn't matter because all our bickering, quibbling and opining isn't going to change much . .

IF . . City Council can waive City Law when they choose to, for the convenience of either themselves or an employee or executive, then we really shouldn't worry about how employees are hired or the ruleset they are supposed to follow . . . That should be the least of our worries . .

So what you are telling me is that the City Charter ratified by the voters of Pueblo and whose content can only be changed or modified by a vote of the citizens is only a guideline for the City Council? It is a document that can be waived or tossed aside on a whim by our elected leaders? Boy have I been mislead. I thought it had the force of law, but I guess I was wrong.

large
12-14-2011, 09:55 AM
Apparently . . . . . . .

Marc.N
12-15-2011, 06:31 PM
So what you are telling me is that the City Charter ratified by the voters of Pueblo and whose content can only be changed or modified by a vote of the citizens is only a guideline for the City Council? It is a document that can be waived or tossed aside on a whim by our elected leaders? Boy have I been mislead. I thought it had the force of law, but I guess I was wrong.

There is no "force of law" unless it's enforced by someone.

Since elected officials wanted this person hired an "outsider" would have to take up the fight (if
there is a legitimate fight) since internal "Powers That Be" certainly will not fight themselves.

large
12-18-2011, 10:00 AM
'Nother bone to pick about Pacheco and the City Council . . .

It has been brought up that, indeed, in the City Charter, there is a passage that decrees that the City Manager will reside within the city limits of the City of Pueblo . . Somehow, for this City Manager, the "Law" was "Waived" out of convenience to same person . .

Then, we add to that, "Moving Expenses" that are now being paid, three years after the fact, which, it turns out, aren't really "Moving Expenses" but "Rent" on a Town House within walking distance of City Hall . .

Now I dunno what all Jerry had to move after his (soon to be) ex wife threw his laundry on the driveway pavement, but $7000 would almost move the half a house he's soon to have, I'm sure.

And on that figure ($7000) I have to ask, did any of the City Council persons get an estimate of moving a 3 bedroom house full of furniture 7 miles before signing on to pay that expense? It seems that it might be a little pricey to me . .

Sandra
12-18-2011, 11:54 AM
Then, we add to that, "Moving Expenses" that are now being paid, three years after the fact, which, it turns out, aren't really "Moving Expenses" but "Rent" on a Town House within walking distance of City Hall . .



Are you saying they're cooking the books? How long has he been living "in town"?

large
12-18-2011, 06:15 PM
Are you saying they're cooking the books? How long has he been living "in town"?

Ever since his wife threw his clothes out on the driveway I guess . .

Actually, I don't know that she did that . . But a lot of scorned wives do. I've seen it happen more often than not . . and she sounded, on the TV interview, like that might have been the case. She wasn't a happy camper . . Thus, at the least, He probably got to pick up his belongings in some "Safeway Samsonite" on the front porch . . .