As we reported last week, City Manager Steve Pinkerton is a finalist for a general manager position in Incline Village in Nevada. The Tahoe Daily Tribune last week reported that there will be public interviews on January 30 with the possibility that they run into January 31.
The paper reported, “The board spent about 20 minutes Wednesday discussing the first draft (of a contract), which includes a base salary of $145,000, a $600 monthly reimbursement for vehicle mileage and full recreation benefits, among other clauses.”
The Vanguard has had mixed information on the chances of Mr. Pinkerton being selected as the finalist. One view says that there are three votes there to hire the local candidates. The other view says there are three votes for him that are looking for a new direction.
Our view is that, under the leadership of Steve Pinkerton and the good work of the majority on council, the city has made tremendous progress in a number of areas: fiscal sustainability, economic development, and also in the overall quality and professionalism of city staff.
However, there are tough decisions to make, a tough road ahead, and this year is filled pitfalls – from a likely revenue tax in June to a vote on an innovation park in November, and a tough and persistent $5 million gap that will not be completely closed even with a new tax.
Added on top of that is the fact that the council itself is in flux. Mayor Joe Krovoza is certain to leave the council. There will be at least one new councilmember come July and there are two seats open and another month before the filing deadline closes.
In addition, there is a good possibility that Dan Wolk will end up winning the Assembly seat and resigning from council at the end of the year, opening up another appointment process.
The city was fortunate when Bill Emlen resigned to have a strong in-house option as a interim City Manager in Paul Navazio. However, this time, most of the leading possibilities have limited experience within Davis. If Steve Pinkerton left in February, it is difficult to see a new permanent city manager for another year.
In fact, it took exactly that amount of time to replace Bill Emlen, who resigned in September 2010, with Steve Pinkerton who was hired and began work in September 2011. Those times were, in fact, much less tumultuous than these in terms of membership on council.
At this critical time, Davis needs strong leadership and Steve Pinkerton has been a steady and consistent force.
While I will not discount the words that Mr. Pinkerton put into the public sphere with regard to his personal reasons for seeking Incline Village, I believe a strong factor in the timing was the vulnerability he had in the fall when there was an active effort to terminate his contract.
Ultimately the council decided to move forward with Mr. Pinkerton as city manager, but, in the process, he realized that he was vulnerable – vulnerable in the near future, should the council shift away from the philosophies guiding at least three council members on fiscal stability.
One way to restore that confidence may be for the council not to sit around and wait to see what happens in Incline Village. The council can step up and offer Steve Pinkerton a contract extension that sweetens the package by a small amount.
Yes, we are in tough times. Yes, we have asked city employees to take concessions. No one employee is irreplaceable, but the city overall cannot afford to lose the city manager and proceed with an interim for an extended period of time.
We have a precedent for doing this, in fact, even during tough times.
In the Spring of 2010, Police Chief Landy Black was a finalist for the Fairfield position. A lot of that was financial considerations.
“While there have been periodic discussions resembling contract negotiations during the nearly two years since the contract ended, no real progress had been made,” he said in a statement to the Vanguard in 2010. “Additionally, with the economy causing great concern with so many folks regarding the City of Davis budget–long-term and structurally–and the notable attention regarding employee compensation, I became concerned that a mutually satisfactory agreement might not be reached.”
The move put the city in a tough spot, as it was then and it is now, attempting to ask rank and file city employees to take concessions and temporary pay cuts.
At the same time, as we wrote at the time, “Chief Landy Black has brought great stability to a department that upon his arrival was racked by controversy and difficulties with several different aspects of the communities.”
For instance, the Vanguard reported that in the previous three years under Chief Hyde, the city’s risk management insurance pool, YCPARMIA, paid out over $1.4 million in claims from anything ranging from use of force complaints to $400,000 for a collision involving a police car. In the three years under Chief Black that number is $90,000.
We have similar arguments now for keeping City Manager Steve Pinkerton.
This community is proud to have put forth such a great and bold face to the region at Cap-to-Cap last year. This year, as the council seeks to attract business, will they have to explain that a petty dispute with the fire chief led to councilmembers trying to oust a well-respected and professional city manager? How is that going to look to the region?
How are we going to attract key and bold new business when it looks like we are bogged down by petty political infighting? How will it look to the region that we lost our city manager to a community that is torn by the issue of bear-proof trash containers?
And so, we have a chance to redeem ourselves but we must act fast.
If it was a loss of trust and a feeling of vulnerability that pushed him to move for Incline Village, the council can restore that trust with a new contract. By doing so quickly, ahead of the January 30 interviews, they can give Steve Pinkerton the public vote of confidence and give him the impetus to withdraw his name from consideration at Incline Village.
If the council does not act quickly, their fate and the fate of this community for the next year will be in the hands of three voters in Incline Village, Nevada, rather than in Davis, California.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David – Thank you for a very timely and well written analysis and recommendation. As do you, I can only hope that our Council will take active measures to demonstrate their strong support for Steve during this critically important time for our community.
“How will it look to the region that we lost our city manager to a community that is torn by the issue of bear proof trash containers?”
It might not be so bad living in a community that needs to fight over this issue. Plus the views aren’t bad either. I wish him the best of luck, but share your concerns over the impacts his departure would have on the city.
The question isn’t how can we get him to stay its if we can keep him from going. Living in the Central Valley or in one of the most beautiful places on earth might be a tough call for some but not for others. Having a job where you don’t have all this craziness about trying to get people better water or build housing or tear down a stinky old 80 year old bathroom or where your efforts to grow your way to a sustainable budget gets trumped by rich people that want to preserve an economic order that has exploited farm labor for generations going back to the 19th century. Then on top of everything else people are actively trying to get you fired.
The sad story here is if the City Council had done the right thing in the first place and offered Pinkerton a new contract instead of putting him through the wringer while he has kids to raise he probably wouldn’t have applied at Incline in the first place. Now our best hope is that he isn’t offered the job, something that, if Pinkerton really wants it, he deserves to get. And by the way we will deserve to get too.
Mr. Toad: They’ve been fighting over bear proof trash containers up there, we don’t have a monopoly on craziness.
Let’s see… CM pay rate is between $159k -$188k per year (source: city website). I’d guess the higher end. With that difference in compensation, not seeing how a ‘slight increase in compensation’ will be a factor in the CM’s choice. Is this all a ploy (rumors of firing, etc) to get a compensation increase? Probably not, but still don’t understand what David envisions as a slight increase in compensation is, and how that would matter to the CM’s decision (assuming he is offered the position).
In earlier posts I’ve strongly advocated that good public administrators receive compensation commensurate with their skills and experience. If you got a star, pay him/her and comparative salaries be damned. Capable administrators save more money than they cost, because they are capable and cost much less in the long run.
A proven leader is quickly revealed while in high profile positions and soon is in great demand. Headhunters are constantly recruiting them for other, larger, more prestigious, better paying positions. And these recruitment efforts are not just for government positions. The private sector recognizes good leadership wherever it may be. Taking the two named Davis city officials mentioned, if you doubled their salary, the citizens of Davis would still have the greatest bargain going. I’ll repeat, “You get what you pay for,” and add, “You lose when don’t.”
Well said Phil. Very well said. I personally feel that Steve is doing a very good job. No one is perfect, and Steve is no different, but I believe the successes far outnumber and outweigh the glitches.
I think the council has to figure that stuff out. I should add, this is strictly my idea, I don’t believe it’s a ploy by Mr. Pinkerton.
It isn’t a ploy it was an attempt to land on his feet when faced with being given the hook by the CC.
Incline Village:
Sales Tax Rate = 7.75%
Property Tax Rate = 35% of assessed value x $.033197 (or about 1%)
Nevada Income Tax Rate = 0%
For someone that is a new home owner like Pinkerton, there would be no material monetary benefit for CA prop-13 property tax rates (assessed value and purchase price would be the same).
Per the US Census, in 2007, Incline Village median home value was $687k. Davis was $538k. I am guessing that that in 2014 this comparison will be about the same. So housing is going to be a bit more expensive.
So, you might make the case that the tax benefits are offset by the higher cost of housing.
However, I think an offer from the city of Davis would have to address the monetary benefits of a smaller Nevada tax bill.
Lastly, based on the comments from Pinkerton relative to his family-attraction to Incline Village, there may not be anything Davis can do to convince him to stay. Incline Village is a pretty exclusive little city with world class amenities.
“there may not be anything Davis can do to convince him to stay. Incline Village is a pretty exclusive little city with world class amenities.”
If he is bent on leaving if offered, then there is not much the council can do. If on the other hand they give a show of support, perhaps it gives him a reason to bow out of the Incline Village process.
What do you suggest as additional compensation to encourage him to ‘bow out?
Note – with respect to political craziness… I have several friends that live there. One of the trustees is a dear friend. It is crazy there too. IV is also facing budget shortfalls and needs to tighten its spending and look for new revenue sources with a population that resists change and Lake Tahoe environmental regulations that make additional development next to impossible. Davis may be crazier, but IV is not a panacea of peace and harmony when it comes to local politics. Pinkerton would have his hands full again.
I don’t know what Pinkerton’s wife does for a living, but Let’s say that you are a high earning family with $300k per year in taxable income. Today, your marginal CA state income tax hit is probably around 8%. That is $24,000 per year. That is $120,000 every five years. Move to Incline Village and save $120,000 every five years… sounds like a prudent move to me. And you get the added benefit of living there.
Think you’re overstating income tax benefits… who pays the marginal tax rate for their entire income? That being said, I agree with the rest of your comments.
hpierce – I wrote “taxable income”… so I was using a gross income number higher than $300k. Even if we drop my number to $250k or $200k, it is still material.
Does Nevada have a flat rate on taxable income? If so, I stand corrected.
My bad. Nevada has no income tax. California has a graduated tax rate. Still, the compensation is higher in Davis.
“Let’s say that you are a high earning family with $300k per year in taxable income. Today, your marginal CA state income tax hit is probably around 8%. That is $24,000 per year.”
I plugged in an income of $300K for a married couple filing jointly in CA, and this is what the calculator on tax-brackets dot org told me:
Federal Tax: $68,713.00
State Tax: $22,291.60
Total Tax: $91,004.60
Here is the answer on an income of $188k (which is really lower than Pinkerton’s salary, because that ignores the 2 weeks of “management leave” he and all other “managers” (many of whom do not manage anyone) are able to cash out every January:
Federal Tax: $34,505.50
State Tax: $11,875.60
Total Tax: $46,381.10
Lastly, this is the estimated tax owed for a job in Nevada which pays $145,000 (as the IV GM job does):
Federal Tax: $23,107.50
State Tax: $0.00
Total Tax: $23,107.50
Bottom line: the Davis job pays much better. There is no reason to “sweeten the pot” to keep him here compared with Incline Village. I think it’s a bad idea to get caught up in the notion of overpaying a little to keep someone valuable, even though I think Pinkerton is very good and more than earns his keep. My belief is that if he has the strong support of the City Council, he won’t leave for that job at Incline Village.
Another thing to consider–with all public employees–is that there are many who are ambitious climbers, whether they are good at their jobs or not. These folks will always be looking for a slightly better position with better pay somewhere else. It’s a fools errand, even if they are good, to try to outbid every other city to keep them. And just because they are ambitious, does not mean they are any good. And just because someone else is not so ambitious–say the person really likes living in Davis and wants to retire here–does not mean he is no good.
But with $23k tax savings the IV job gets closer to the Davis job compensation.
No, it’s not that close, if you account for a benefits package worth 3-4 times as much and the extra paycheck for “management leave.”
One thing I have been thinking about is the idea of getting rid of “management leave” entirely in the next contracts. The problem is that far too many city employees get this benefit, whether it makes sense or not.
The idea is that these folks work more than 40 hours per week and don’t get overtime pay. So to compensate them, the City effectively gives them 3 paychecks in January instead of 2. (No one really takes the leave–they all cash this out.)
What would be smarter, in my opinion, would be to give a small raise to the few senior managers who have to put in a lot of overtime, and then get rid of this perk for all the others under that contract.
A major problem in Davis is that we have a lot of clerical workers making management pay, and thus not everyone getting a management leave bonus really deserves that extra money, no matter how many hours they are putting in.
Of course, unless we have a Council with a much stronger backbone which understands this issue and agrees with me*, it will never happen.
*I grant the fact that some can understand the problem, but simply do not agree with me.
i find myself in strong agreement with toad, realchangz, and phil coleman here. we get what we pay for. after enduring antonen and emlen’s incompetence for a decade, pinkerton is a strong leader and council needs to show him the love now.
Am I the only one who think that Pinkerton’s role in the Mace 391 debacle was shameful? That he was part of negotiations for land swaps for months without letting the relevant commissions know? That he tried to put the idea of a landswap on the consent calendar (as though it were noncontroversial!), then at the last moment, when it was obvious that the s*** had hit the fan, pulled it off and made a pitch for a particular landswap (Shriners), then later denied having recommeded Shriners in particular (even though it’s all there in the documents!)? If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But whether you were for or against the land swap, if I am right, I don’t see how Pinkerton’s behavior can be condoned, and how one could want someone who would behave that way to be city manager. Sweeten the deal for him to stay? No way.
On a tangentially related note, I wish Krovoza would see the handwriting on the wall and throw his hat in the ring for City Council. We need him.
clearly pinkerton made a mistake in the handling of 391, but based on that, we want him gone? particularly given the other successes, i’m willing to give a rather egregious error.
Sorry, I left a reply to you but didn’t put it in the right place (see comment January 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm)
“Well, I think it was more than just one error… I think it was a series of errors that shows poor judgment and questionable ethics. So, yes, personally, I have trouble trusting someone who would behave in that way. But mainly I was just expressing surprise at a series of articles talking about Pinkerton and alluding to some less-than-perfect decisions without anyone calling this series of incidents out in particular. (Surely these incidents were on City Council members minds as they decided whether to continue his contract? But no mention of them from the Vanguard). If we had an explicit weighing of particular good and bad decisions I might be more inclined to see the benefit of making an extra effort to keep him”
davisite4 said . . .
“But mainly I was just expressing surprise at a series of articles talking about Pinkerton and alluding to some less-than-perfect decisions without anyone calling this series of incidents out in particular.”
davisite, the June 11th Mace 391 scheduling debacle (jumble as Brett Lee called it that night from the dais) was not a series of incidents. it was a single incident on Steve’s part. I’m not sure what you see as the component events in the “series” you are referencing. Can you help me better understand those perceived events?
davisite4 said . . .
“Am I the only one who think that Pinkerton’s role in the Mace 391 debacle was shameful?”
I’ve actually given your point above a whole lot of thought ever since June 9th when David first broke the story of the calendaring issues associated with the June 11th agenda item. Pinkerton was very straightforward with me when I confronted him personally face-to-face asking, “Why did this happen?” He was very candid that he clearly failed to effectively multi-task the various competing issues vying for his time. He said he prioritized the Budget as issue #1, and the Mace 391 issue took the kind of back seat it never should have taken. I don’t know if acknowledging one’s errors is shameful or not. Sometimes a person can be both shamed and respected at the same time.
Regarding your statement that “he was part of negotiations for land swaps for months”, that is the very first time I have heard that accusation said about Pinkerton. Do you know from first hand knowledge that he was? I certainly don’t know that, either first hand or second hand. I have heard the names of other past and present staff members associated with the November 19, 2013 Staff Report words below, but never has Pinkerton ever been one of those names. To the best of my knowledge staff never shared their “internal discussions” with him.
Bottom-line, I think you are 1) putting far too much emphasis on the events of several days in June, 2) placing Pinkerton in negotiations that he wasn’t part of, and 3) failing to hold accountable the staff that were involved in the 2011 and 2012 “failures to communicate.”
Well, I think it was more than just one error… I think it was a series of errors that shows poor judgment and questionable ethics. So, yes, personally, I have trouble trusting someone who would behave in that way. But mainly I was just expressing surprise at a series of articles talking about Pinkerton and alluding to some less-than-perfect decisions without anyone calling this series of incidents out in particular. (Surely these incidents were on City Council members minds as they decided whether to continue his contract? But no mention of them from the Vanguard). If we had an explicit weighing of particular good and bad decisions I might be more inclined to see the benefit of making an extra effort to keep him.
i think if you read the vanguard in june, much criticism was leveled at the city on the issue. however, at least according to the annonymous sources cited, the driving force was fire, not 391. not wolk was a supporter of 391 in june.
Levied at the city, yes. But I haven’t seen anyone connect *all* of the dots w/r to *Pinkerton*. I don’t know what is on CC members’ minds, and am not trying to claim I do. But if someone was a supporter of building on Mace 391, surely they can see how Pinkerton’s actions had the inadvertent effect of tanking the plan.
What plan? Mace 391 as a business park was only an opportunity, not a plan. Those that started squealing about it would have squealed about it no matter when nor how the opportunity was presented.
davisite, when you are connecting *all* the dots, perhaps you might want to look at the June 11th Council meeting agenda and think about those agenda items in terms of the juggling that Pinkerton had to do in the days and hours prior to that particular Council meeting.
Dot #1 a closed session real estate negotiation with representatives of Cassidy Turley (probably Jim Gray) and Dave Taormino (owner of Caldwell Banker in Davis). Jim and Dave are real pushovers in most real estate negotiations.
Dot #2 a closed session labor negotiation with representatives of DCEA and the five members of the City Council
Dot #3 a closed session labor negotiation with representatives of Firefighters Local 3494 and the five members of the City Council
Dot #4 a closed session personal evaluation of his performance as City Manager by the five members of the City Council
Dot #5 the eleven Consent Calendar items (12 with Mace 391 in there)
Dot #6 the public session deliberating the City’s Last, Best and Final Offer to Davis City Employee’s Association (DCEA)
Dot #7 the public workshop on the Cannery continued from the November 12th meeting
Dot #8 Mace 391 / Leland Ranch
Just out of curiosity, what do you get when you connect those eight dots?
Dot #5
I guess you’re trying to imply that Pinkerton was just very busy immediately before that particular meeting and so used poor judgment. But that doesn’t explain his behavior in the months before the June meeting or the months afterward. It also doesn’t, to my mind, explain the second, revised staff recommendation, which he would not have had time to do had he been as busy as you seem to imply.
If there are other conclusions you want to draw, you’ll have to state them explicitly, I’m afraid.
To the best of my knowledge, based on the extensive homework/investigation that I did after the June 11th Council meeting, Steve Pinkerton was neither involved with, nor aware of the activities that the Community Development and Sustainability Department conducted that were reflected in the Staff Report description,
You must be a Roman scholar, because you follow the precepts of Roman Law … guilty until proven innocent. I hope that is explicit enough for you.
With respect to the “second, revised staff recommendation,” if you go to that staff report you will clearly see that the byline for the staff report is Steve Pinkerton, City Manager and Mike Webb, Community Development and Sustainability Director. I seriously doubt Pinkerton wrote a word of it. I also suspect that Mike Webb, had some ghost writing of large portions of the report by members of his staff. My personal belief is that Pinkerton’s role in the authoring of that report falls into “the buck stops here” category. I hope that is explicit enough for you.
Finally, I am not implying that Pinkerton was too busy given all those *dots* I am explicitly stating that there is a limit to any human’s ability to successfully multi-task, and Pinkerton was exponentially over that limit during the days leading up to June 11th.
Let me be very clear that as a person who feels that the ultimate Mace 391 decision 1) abandoned the opportunity to put 3,000 acres of Urban Fringe into permanent Conservation Easement, and 2) resulted in the selling of a $100 million City asset for $4 million, I think the calendaring problems of the June 11th meeting made it tantamount to impossible for the Council to vote in any way other than the way they did, and by Pinkerton’s own admission, that calendaring “jumble” was his fault, I should be angry as Hell at Pinkerton for that human error. However, I know that I am far from perfect, and I’m sure you will agree that you are far from perfect, so for either of us to expect Steve Pinkerton to be perfect is not only unrealistic, it is hypocritical. I hope that is explicit enough for you.
You must have missed the part of my original post where I said, “If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me.” It is good to hear a more complete picture of what happened and to hear who else is to blame besides Pinkerton. I don’t know why you just didn’t say all of this in the first place. Instead you make cryptic posts — cryptic to me, someone who doesn’t know all the facts — and then makes insulting remarks comparing me to a Roman scholar and calling my hypocritical? Wtf? Just be more straightforward and we could have saved a lot of time here.
I guess I just assumed that the City Manager would be aware of any official activities done by any City staff member. But again, I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about these things.
davisite, I wasn’t trying to be cryptic. In my January 14, 2014, 11:45 pm response to your post I said,
I was sincerely trying to understand your perspective. Further in my January 14, 2014 at 11:35 pm post, I outlined many of the details that I repeated in my post tonight. I honestly thought you were simply ignoring those points and proceeding to the sentencing phase of Mr. Pinkerton’s trial by fire. I apologize for jumping to that hasty conclusion. Here’s what I said in that post last night,