Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Closed Session Scheduled (Tuesday, 24 August 2010 @ 4:30 P.M.) to Discuss Performance Evaluation of the City Administrator

On Tuesday, 17 August 2010, City Council Member Jason Burnett posted Closed Session Scheduled on his web site Carmel-by-the-Sea COMMUNITY CONVERSATION stating that “The Mayor just let me know that she has scheduled a closed session for the afternoon of August 24th to discuss a performance evaluation of the City Administrator.”
(Source: Updates from Jason, Closed Session Scheduled)

Behind Closed Doors
Carmel City Council to discuss embattled City Administrator
By Robin Urevich

(Note: Since there has not been a change in salary or benefits since October 2008, a "new contract was never executed.")


Rich Guillen – Value of Total Compensation as of April 30, 2009 (Annual Basis):
Salary: $150,000
Employer PERS (17.266%) on Salary only: $25,899
Employer Medicare (1.45%) on Salary & Auto: $2,236
Auto: $4,200
Fitness Membership: $420
Medical (85% of 2-Party PersCHOICE): $10,232
Dental/Vision (self-ins. for 2-Party: $797
Annual Physical Exam Costs Reimbursement: $500
Life Insurance ($30,000) plus AD&D Ins. ($30,000): $158
Management Leave Hours – 100 per fiscal year @ $72.12/hour: $7,212
Deferred Comp.: $6,600
TOTAL: $208,253

Vacation Accrual – 3 weeks/fiscal year (5-10 year rate)
Mgmt/Admin Leave – 100 hrs/fiscal year
General Leave Day – 8 hrs/fiscal year
Sick Leave – 12 days/fiscal year

Rich Guillen - Compensation History:
January 2002:
Salary: $124,000

January 2007:
Salary: $133,024

September 2007:
Salary: $138,000
Total: $160,174

January 2008:
Salary: $138,000
Total: $193,477

April 2009:
Salary: $150,000
Total: $208,253


CV said...

Don't expect any revelations to come from Tuesday's meeting.

Carmelites are not going to get the 4 out of 5 council member votes needed to fire Rich Guillen, as much as he needs to be gone.

We won't be able to get rid of Guillen because Paula Hazdovac and Sue McCloud are joined at the hip to defend their man (whom they have worked with for 10 years.) Never mind that he has broken all kinds of ethical rules and breached his contract in doing so.

If the votes fall short, there should at least be a majority vote to fire Rich Guillen. Word around town is the swing vote may come from Karen Sharp, but that she is leaning toward Sue and Paula's position.

Karen is certainly one who does not like controversy, but she has found herself in one of the worst messes Carmel has ever seen.

Karen should be standing up for the women and employees that work for the city, to give them a safe work environment. Let's hope that Karen finally finds her backbone and stands up for what is right.

Karen is likely not to run for re-election in 2012. If she does, this Rich Guillen debacle will be her baggage if she votes to keep Guillen.

Readers of this blog who feel strongly about the need to rid Carmel of Rich Guillen should e-mail Karen Sharp before Tuesday, August 24, at and urge her to take a stand for what is right for Carmel.

It is possible that the powers that be will force an up or down vote at Tuesday's meeting so they can move beyond this controversy and get it over with.

The likelihood is that the public will not let this matter die away if Rich Guillen is not fired or does not leave.

VillageinForest said...

To supplement the articulate comments of CV, contact information for the five council members:

Council Member Karen Sharp
Tel: (831 624-5727 (Home)

Council Member Ken Talmage
Tel: (831) 624-2462 (Home)

Council Member Paula Hazdovac
Tel: (831) 625-2480 (Home)

Mayor Sue McCloud
Home Tel: (831) 624-7310

Council Member Jason Burnett
Tel: 831-624-3252 (Home)

Anonymous said...

Sue McCloud supporter Dennis Levett really showed how out of touch he is with reality. If Rich Guillen is really the best city manager Dennis Levett has ever seen, I would hate to see the worst city managers. According to Levett, he is the best because he is intelligent, accessible and a problem solver. Let’s examine: intelligent? When Guillen came to Carmel he said all cities have 82% of the annual budget in reserve funds. Seaside, where he came from, did not and most cities do not. Accessible? Well, certainly accessible to Female A and Female B. Problem solver? Well, he always asks for policy direction from the council at practically every council meeting. He does not do anything without the permission and authorization of the mayor. Let’s stop the dishonest distractions and speak the truth: Rich Guillen is a liability the city cannot afford in terms of potential future city employee lawsuits and the damage to the city's reputation.

It is people like Dennis Levett, a staunch supporter of the mayor, who should be the most adamant about telling Sue the party is over, it is time to put the interests of the people of Carmel ahead of her own selfish clinging to power political interests act. If she and the council vote to retain Rich Guillen on Tuesday, her legacy will be the Rich Guillen affair. And we and the city’s reputation will suffer for as long as Sue McCloud is mayor.

Anonymous said...

What a time to write a letter to the editor in support of the mayor and council. Does Matthew Little, Jr. inhabit outerspace? And he thinks the mayor and council have support because they always do the right thing. What a joke! If the mayor and council cared about doing the right thing, they would have removed the city administrator long ago. They have known about Females A & B, unearned salary increases and bonuses, harassment of employees who did not play along, etc. They even knew the investigation concluding Jane Miller’s claims were unsubstantiated was bogus because the private investigator did not interview any of the four city employees who made claims of hostile workplace environment and forced early retirement against the city and city administrator and received secret settlements.

And talk about a blatant quid pro quo - Matthew Little writes a letter to the Pine Cone the same week it is announced he is appointed to the Historic Resources Board. Sue must not have been in the clandestine branch of the CIA, the quid pro quo is so terribly obvious, it could not have been done by a master covert agent, more like a desperate woman who has to call on her usually silent supporters to give her support when she least deserves it.

Anonymous said...

$208,253 paid annually to City Administrator Rich Guillen for dogwalking and other chores dictated by the mayor does not pass the common sense test. I am for paying a competitive salary and benefits package to a competent and upstanding and qualified person, but I am not for spending over $200,000 to an incompetent and immoral person. We know his record. He is not accessible and he does not answer questions. And he does not even manage the city, the mayor does, another incompetent person.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding Karen Sharp is to be away traveling in Europe during the September regular council meeting. So a vote on the future fate of Rich Guillen will not occur at the September closed session prior to the regular meeting. Perhaps another closed meeting later in September or October will produce a vote on Guillen.

Perhaps a public agenda item on the city's sexual harassment policy will appear on the September 14 council meeting, but I think action needs to be taken on Guillen before a public airing on the policies because the policies could be used to substitute for the real action which needs to be taken, the removal of the city administrator. I also think it foolish to think that having policies is a substitute for having good people. Good people would never have allowed this to go on for years with or without a sexual harassment policy.

Anonymous said...

Join the conversation at the Fire Rich Guillen Facebook page!