by: Diane Benjamin
Think back to when it was announced that City Attorney Todd Greenburg was leaving. What was the public told? The talking points were he wrote a letter to City Manager David Hales that affected their relationship, so they could no longer work together.
On December 30 Greenburg spoke to and was questioned by the Springfield City Council. The Mayor of Springfield wants to hire him. During the question and answer session Greenberg said the letter had nothing to do with his leaving. He claims the letter in question was about the terms of his departure and he could not release a copy of it without the City of Bloomington’s permission. He stated he left because Mayor Renner wanted him gone.
So, somebody is stretching the truth. You can listen to the whole interview here: http://www.springfieldcityclerk.com/CommitteeWhole/Audio/12-30-13Committee.mp3
Some of the questions by the Council make for interesting listening. Springfield is trying to recover from their own scandals. There is obvious tension on the Council. Sound familiar?
It gets even better. Springfield, if they hire Greenburg, would be able to fire him at anytime because he would be an at-will appointee. Greenburg would get no severance pay. He would be employed at the whim of the Mayor.
Greenburg was an at-will employee for Bloomington too. He was not working with a contract, however Bloomington paid him money to leave and will continue to pay him for 3 months unless he finds another job. It appears Bloomington was afraid of being sued, after all Greenburg is a lawyer. Springfield obviously better manages employment. Maybe Bloomington will be smarter with their next lawyer.
The State Journal-Register wrote this story about the Greenburg interview:
http://www.sj-r.com/article/20131230/NEWS/131239951/10367/NEWS/?tag=1&refresh=true
It seems like cities love to recycle employees. David Hales was recycled. Funny how all previous employers end up giving glowing recommendations as employees are kicked out the door.
.
.
.
After listening to Greenburg’s interview with Springfield City Council, and considering the current hotbed scenarios involving the Mayor, the City Manager and Greenburg with multiple issues in Bloomington, a few concerns come to mind not at all related to Greenburg’s specific performance in Bloomington. The suggestion his behavior may not have complied with the Mayor’s transparency position on the surface forces so many questions considering prior and subsequent activity.
1. Current Mayor Renner’s campaign focused on transparency. Since so much dialogue has been raised regarding this, including whether or not transparency is being accomplished, “transparent” should be defined by the Mayor and in what parameters is that definition operable?
2. Greenburg stated in his interview that a disagreement with the Mayor – and his ultimate determination – was based on his reluctance to release FOIA information regarding Bloomington’s Deputy Chief of Police and to comply according to an Attorney General decision re FOIA requests. This begs the question, then, why the Pantagraph report stated Greenburg’s vacancy was the result of a letter questioning administrative and staff changes regarding a reorganization of departments? Somebody’s not forthwith regarding the truth. Who and why?
3. Why was the Mayor so eager to release the information about the Deputy Chief that Greenburg’s cautionary stance to consult Council cost him his job, when the information was ultimately released anyway?
4. Greenburg stated in his interview that City Manager Hales was so distracted by the commotion caused by the conflict between the Mayor and himself, that the City Manager wasn’t able to perform his job. This, in and of itself, raises many questions and concerns.
Couldn’t do his job? What was it about the issue that would not allow him to do his job?
Distracted? What about the issue would distract the City Manager from doing what?
Did Greenburg’s delay in the release of the information interfere with some issue, project or objective both the Mayor and the City Manager were trying to pursue?
And, yet, the City Manager is on the verge of being awarded another raise in pay while the Mayor issues “executive” mandates prohibiting the criticism of the City Manager?
This is the same City Manager that the Mayor’s campaign promised to get rid of were he elected?
Again, what’s the real story behind the story, here?
5. Greenburg’s interview also revealed some procedural and authoritative inconsistencies versus what appeared to be typical in Springfield. For Bloomington to be “off” in these procedural areas (due to instruction from the City Manager, according to Greenburg) is odd considering that Bloomington strives so hard to be like other cities.
Why the inconsistencies, and begs the question, who’s really running the City of Bloomington?
6. It’s also interesting to note that throughout this entire volleying match regarding the Mayor and his promises, transparencies and performance, or the lack thereof, that it continues, that its allowed to continue, and that the City Manager has not managed it any better. Why?
The bottom line here, is, I think, and may be clear to other’s, as well, is that there are some inconsistencies that just don’t add up when you bring them to light and think about them.
Transparency?
I think there’s more to see here than what any definition of transparency could reveal.
What’s really going on in Bloomington?
Stacey Marsity