how not to manage a city

A couple of weeks back a " Letter of Reprimand"was issued to one of the city planners for not notifying a developer of the council decision to deny their development request for land in south Maplewood. This is required under the 60 day rule (MN Statues Section 1599) The incident occurred on Sept. 28, 2006.

In the letter it is indicated that the incident would not have occurred if the planner had knowledge of the existence of such a rule, it further states " As a professional planner you should have known the rules you (I emphasized this because it is implied that it is the planners personal responsibility not the city's) are required to comply with". The letter goes on to indicate that on Dec. 28, 2006 that training was given by the city attorney on the topic. This was three months after the incident occurred.

The letter finishes up with a statement that if something like this were to happen again that more serious discipline such as suspension or termination would be possible.

The city planners are the people that do the research for various city issues and write the reports to provide information to the commissions, citizens, and the council. In the city management ladder(page 74 of the link ) they are at the bottom. Above them is the senior planner, the building inspector, the finance and administration manager, the city attorney, and of course the city manager. My understanding is that only one of those six people actually knew the exact requirements of the statute, that was the city attorney. The only person that was reprimanded was the worker at the bottom of the ladder.

Before the "reorganization" and the mass exodus of managers from the city we used to have people in charge of departments that had some knowledge and background in their departments functions. That did not make it so that we always got it right but it did create a situation in which it was much more likely that the person in charge could provide additional insight into situations affecting their department. In this department we now have the senior planner who apparently did not know the law reporting to the building official who definitely did not know, (great building official, no planning background). He reports to the finance and administrative manager. At the time this happened the position was not filled but it would not have made any difference. Look at the job title- this person is not going to know much about anything regarding planning law or practices. The city attorney who actually knew the law but did not bother to see if any one else did, advises the city manager who does not have any background in city management, let alone city planning. All these people and yet no one willing to stand up and take responsibility, (lets blame the guy at the bottom!!, yeah, that's a good idea!).

I cannot agree with this management philosophy for either the organization of departments led by people that do not have the nuts and bolts knowledge of their departments functions, or of the decision to blame one person at the bottom for what is the responsibility of the entire chain of command.

This would not be how I would think that situations like this should be ideally handled but there is already a letter out there so the ability to turn this into a learning experience for all is most likely gone. I am of course fully aware that I as a council person in Maplewood's form of government, do not have any say in the inner workings of the city's employees beyond the city manager. Due to the fact that there is already a letter of reprimand out there I was thinking the fair approach would be for each of the individuals involved to receive a similar letter so that each person would take responsibility for there part in the incident. I can not actually reprimand any of them except the city manager but if there were letters they might look like these. The wording is for the most part the same as the letter which was issued with changes made by me to reflect the different positions of the recipients.

To: Senior Planner
Subject: Letter of Reprimand

This is a letter of reprimand for not following the "60-Day Rule" (MN Statues Section 1599) when you did not advise the planner under your authority to notify a developer within the 60-days as required. This violation occurred on Thursday Sept. 28, 2006, for the Carver Crossing Development project. The incident showed lack of knowledge and poor judgement on your part.

This incident would not have occurred had you known the statutory requirement for the 60-day notice. As the senior planner you should have know the rules you are required to comply with for notifications to the public and developers.

This is the first time you have been written up for the "60-Day Rule" deadline requirement. On December 28, 2006, you received training by the city attorney. This training was after the incident occurred.

There could be further discipline for incidents of the same or a similar nature.


To: Building Official
Subject: Letter of Reprimand

This is a letter of reprimand for not following the "60-Day Rule"(MN Statues Section 1599) when you did not hold discussions in the planning department to insure that all proper procedure's were reviewed and followed for proper notification for the Carver Crossing Development project. This incident occurred on Sept. 28, 2006. The incident showed your lack of knowledge of the planning process and its requirements for notification. I realize that you did not ask to be put in this position and that your training and education did not prepare you for the planning field but you are the manager of this department and certainly could have asked if there were any specific rules that should be followed in cases like this.

This incident would not have occurred had you known the statutory requirement for the 60-day notice. As the department manager it is your responsibility to insure that your department is carrying out it duties as directed by State Statue.

This is the first time that you have been written up for the "60-Day Rule" deadline requirement. On Dec. 28, 2006 your department received training from the city attorney. This training was after the incident occurred.

If there are any further oversights of a similar nature they could result in more serious discipline.

To: Finance and Administrative Manager
Subject: Letter of Reprimand

This is a letter of reprimand for not following the "60-Day Rule (MN Statue Section 1599) When the planning department did not notify a developer with in the 60-days as required. The violation of the "60-Day Rule" deadline occurred on Thursday Sept. 28, 2006. for the Carver Crossing Development project.

I realize that you were not employed by the city at that time and even if you were that you have no educational or past job experience in any of these issues that would have allowed you to provide any insight into this process. But the person that was reprimanded for this action was also not aware that the statue had been altered about 2 to 3 years ago and was following the procedure that the city had always used. The worker was still held accountable, so it seems just as logical to lay blame on someone that was not here at the time.

This incident would not have occurred had you been employed by the city and you knew the requirement for the 60-day rule and you passed that information on to those who are supposed to implement the procedures. As the over all manager of this section of the Maplewood operational layout you should have at least some knowledge of the procedures that take place in the department.

If there are any further incidents of the same or similar nature, you could receive actual discipline in the future.

To: City Attorney
Subject: Letter of Reprimand

This is a letter of reprimand for not following the "60-Day Rule" (MN Statue Section 1599) when you did not do anything to make sure that as the new city attorney you were familiar with the processes that were used and understood in Maplewood for complying with the 60-days rule . The violation of the "60-Day Rule" occurred on Thursday Sept. 28, 2006, for the Carver Crossing Development project. The incident showed your lack of advance thinking capabilities and your assumption that everyone would be familiar with all current procedures for notification in this matter.

This incident would not have occurred if you had thought to cover the requirements that are involved in complying with the 60-day rule with the staff that would be following these procedures. You were the only person that actually knew the notification requirements and thus you were in reality the only person that had the ability to insure compliance with those requirements. The fact that you were willing to assume that the proper procedure would be followed in a matter that obviously was of great importance to the Council casts doubt on your commitment to insuring the Councils directives are carried out.

This is the first time that you have been written up for the 60-Day Rule" deadline requirement. On Dec. 28, 2006 you finally did provide that training to the staff even though it was three months after the incident occurred.

If there are further incidents of the same or similar nature, you might be disciplined.

To: City Manager
From: Will Rossbach
Subject: Letter of Reprimand

This letter of reprimand for not following the "60-Day Rule" (MN Statue Section 1599) when you did not send a memo to anyone requesting follow up on the details, did not ask the city attorney to follow up on the details, did not ask the building official to make sure everything was handled, in short did nothing to manage the situation. The violation occurred on Sept. 28, 2006, for the Carver Crossing Development project. The incident showed your lack of knowledge and poor judgement on your part. Additionally the fact that the letter of reprimand was not issued for 6 months after the incident occurred shows an excessive lack of follow through on your part.

This incident would not have occurred had you known the statutory requirement for 60-day notice, or if you had directed anyone to insure compliance of the rule. As the city manager all activities that take place in the city are your responsibility. The fact that you are not aware of the rule, as witnessed by the reprimand issued to the planner through the building official, is not an excuse. As the manager you would have to know the importance that this denial had to the Council so you should have gone to extra lengths to ensure all the final details were handled.

This is the first time that you have been written up for the "60-Day Rule" deadline requirement. On Dec 28, 2006 the city attorney gave training to the planning staff, a full three months after the incident. The MN Supreme Court has ruled since in a case similar to the Maplewood incident that the notification rule in most cases does not apply, making this entire process unnecessary.

This is the first time you have been written up for the "60-Day Rule" deadline requirement. If there are further incidents of the same or similar nature, you may be disciplined, including the possibility of suspension or termination.