In a surprise move, City Manager Dennis Wilberg and his attorney are asking for immediate amendments to Wilberg’s employment agreement. The item shows up on the ‘consent’ portion of next Monday’s public session agenda, where it is batched with six other items for summary approval in a single council vote, without discussion.
The item is raising eyebrows because Wilberg is precipitously requesting action on the eve of next Tuesday’s recall election. Some observers speculate Wilberg is concerned about the possibility a more fiscally conservative council might be less generous if MacLean is recalled.
Wilberg wants to rewrite his clause on misconduct, which is now defined in his contract as “dishonesty, fraud, self-dealing or willful misconduct.” His attorney wants all of those eliminated, so that misconduct is redefined to include only misappropriation of funds or conviction of a felony (involving “moral turpitude”). The matter could have significant cost implications to taxpayers, because Wilberg is entitled to nine-months’ severance pay if released for reasons other than misconduct.
Wilberg and his attorney also want to make severance payable as a lump sum, instead of a monthly distribution. In addition they seek to add health benefits to the nine months’ parachute package and provide that attorney fees be paid to the prevailing party in any arbitration or litigation. An attorneys’ fee provision could be a disadvantage to taxpayers, because it might be easier for Wilberg to retain an expensive law firm on contingency, making a lawsuit against the City more likely.
Normally contract revisions follow a series of closed sessions for personnel evaluation, but none has occurred. Wilberg’s master contract, executed March 1, 2004, requires that Wilberg issue a memo on May 1 of each year commencing an annual evaluation and allows until June 30 for the council to complete the process. For unknown reasons, Wilberg failed to initiate and undergo an evaluation last year.
An agenda provided to council members Wednesday did not include any evaluation in conjunction with Wilberg’s employment amendments, but on Thursday it was belatedly added to the closed agenda.
Wilberg is currently paid $197,716 annually plus a health and benefit package. His initial contract in 2004 was for a salary of $136,859. Additional benefits added since 2004 include a $550 monthly auto allowance and $600 monthly “for the purchase of CAlPERS Additional Retirement Service Credit.”
The proposed amendments would be a gift to Wilberg at taxpayers’ expense, so the outcome may turn on whether the Council majority’s personal relationship with Wilberg eclipses business judgment.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Like I said in my previous letter concerning MacLean and our police department. A community gets the politicians and police they want. Do we really want these people?
Maybe it is time for Wilberg to find a new job. He should be given his walking papers.
I can’t believe the salaries these people are making. Our biggest mistake was becoming a city in the first place. The apathy of the voters then gave us what we have today – a bloated, overpriced, self-serving bunch of politicians who are making Mission Viejo a place that is not the most desirable place to live anymore (and we have been here since 1967). It is time for the recall and time to have a city council that will do what is right for the city.
It’s a smart move on the city manager’s part. Mission Viejo is a toxic political environment which creates a lot of instability and anxiety on the part of the manager and organization. Wilberg is simply trying to protect himself as best he can from the pitchfork and torch crowd. It will also make it more difficult to find a good replacement for him if potential candidates believe the political environment in Mission Viejo is in a constant state of political turmoil. Who would really want the aggravation?
In responding to this proposal, Fullerton attorney/city councilman Shawn Nelson has stated:
If the definition of “toxic political environment” stands for people getting actively involved in democracy, paying attention to what is going on, and standing up for the right of the common citizen, then the United States of America is one pristine nation.
Obviously, Mr. Wilberg must be concerned that he could be implicated on one or more of the following actions: “dishonesty, fraud, self-dealing or willful misconduct” or he wouldn’t be seeking an amendment to eliminate them from his contract. The question is: Should officials be held accountable to the same standards of wrongful conduct as other employees or are they above the law and therefore allowed to amend their contract to tailor their actions?
What reason could the council have for supporting this out-of-order amendment (on the eve of this recall election in which they could lose their majority vote on the dais) unless there is a possible thread connecting them to potential misconduct on Mr. Wilberg’s part that could expose them, should a new majority choose to shed light on such actions?
The hypocrisy is overwhelming. How could Councilmember Kelley, the author of the City of Character program and the new city ordinance under which parents are disciplined for serving liquor to their own children or any minor children in their own home upon mere accusation, therefore support an official’s attempt to suddenly redefine the contract which he has accepted since its inception in 2004 in order to skirt a potential termination that could cause him to lose his severance pay?
Mr. Wilberg and his attorney have truly opened up a can of worms. If this council votes in support of this amendment, and Councilmember MacLean is recalled, there could be a lot of squirming going on. Council members MacLean, Ury and Kelley, must deliberate very carefully before passing this amendment. 2010 is not a year for failing incumbents.
Wilberg wants to amend his contract to make it more difficult to fire him for political expediency, not because he’s done something wrong. He sees the writing on the wall and wants to protect himself and his severance package. The language as it’s currently written is open to a great deal of interpretation, not the least of which would be exploited by the torch and pitchfork crowd.
Go Dennis!