City Council Case
1. What is the most important issue in this case? Explain why.
The debate and opinions in this case is different for every person on the council, whether it is standing up for Fran or pushing her out the door. I try to put this situation into context; trying to picture this situation in my city or village. There is quite a bit that this study leaves out, such as population and the city's historic culture, but with that being said, I still have to address the question as it is. The most important issue for the council and the city is trying to determine whether they want to continue on the path they are going, keeping the government solvent and a well-oiled machine, or try to make the government more personable again like the way it apparently …show more content…
used to be.
To continue answering the question, the outlining bones to this issue in this case study is trying to determine if the city wants to keep someone who puts good business practices over good deeds at the head of the city. This issue has to be difficult because deciding the path on which your city takes should not be taken lightly. While I feel like it is possible to have the best of both worlds, the situation needs to be addressed as stated in the case study. 2. What do you think should be done first to address this issue?
I once had to interview a City Administrator for a project in my undergraduate years at UW-Green Bay. James Fenlon was and still is the Administrator for the city of Little Chute, Wisconsin. He said to me that, "Administrators should never get comfortable because a lot of the time they get stale quickly. The city council could fire me at any moment if I became complacent or stagnant in the position," (Fenlon, 2015). With Wisconsin having a moralistic culture when it comes to government, Wisconsinites tend to care more about their government than many other states do.
I currently serve as a Trustee on my Village Board and while we do not have a full time Administrator, we do have a Village President that makes a lot of our decisions. Based on my experience in government, I would say keeping Fran would be in the city's best interest. I will share my reasons why. For one, I do not know much about this city, therefore saying what I truly think without an educated background is hard for me. I believe the best government is a government that is well-oiled and operates on a responsible budget while still providing all the services the city needs, but putting my own opinions aside, the views of this city may be different.
If I were in this situation as an elected member of the city council, the first thing I would do to address this issue would be to discuss with Fran the council's reservations with her.
If her style is hurting relationships within the government and department heads, that should be addressed by the council with her personally. Fran appears to be quite intelligent, so she should be asked to make some changes to make the government more compassionate and try to relate more to the people. This may be enough pressure for her to resign or maybe she understands what needs to get done and makes the appropriate changes. Change is a good thing in government. New ideas and fresh perspective is responsible. It keeps the government more accountable. Denhardt states in his book, Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, "Ambiguity is the enemy of decisions, as clear accountability is desirable," (Denhardt, pg. 126). This quote from his book has always stood out. Everyone has these opinions and different interpretations about Fran, which really makes the decision about how to handle her extremely …show more content…
difficult.
3. Any other steps you would take on that issue?
With the government holding Fran accountable after my suggested City Council meeting with her to express their concerns, there are further steps that could be taken. We may be getting into an issue of wasted time but hiring a new Administrator can be just as costly, if not costlier. The case study states that her, "hard-charging style had alienated department heads and spurred more than a few run-ins with the council itself." She knows that she works for the city and the people in the city to make sure that everything runs smoothly. She may need to be reminded that the Council is in charge of deciding whether she gets to keep that position or not.
I would advise the board and her to have a one-on-one sit-down discussion with every department head so that they can list their grievances. The council would oversee if she is holding these grievances against the department heads or if she is handling it professionally as I would expect her to. This would be the second step. The final step would be termination of her at the position if things did not change.
4. In addition to the primary issue you listed above, are there others that need attention?
I will expand and elaborate on the statements I made in the previous response. The relationship with Fran and the department heads and with Fran and the City Council is probably a more substantial issue for a city than what the case study highlights. While the logistics of the city seem to be moving smoothly, the relationships in the government are poor to say the least. People decide to work in government a lot of the time to be public servants and with the situation with Fran and the morale of the city's departments, this may push away good employees and government leaders. If morale is low and people are not happy, they will leave and that is bad for the city. The city could decide to fire Fran and try and hire someone who can be both good for morale and good for the health of the city. That may not be something the Council wants to partake in because a lot of things have been going so well that they do not want to be responsible for messing that up.
5. What steps do you recommend for addressing those issues?
The first step would be trying to get as much feedback from the public as possible. That is who the government is serving and working for, so they need to be talked to. A town hall meeting is one way for people to express their thought about something the government is considering doing. After taking that feedback into account, take other professional opinions into account. Many department heads and people in the government have opinions and thoughts and those could be expressed.
Like I stated before, one-on-one interaction with Fran and transparency would be the most beneficial for the city residents, Fran, and the city government. The case study does not state if she meets with these department heads or hold town halls regularly, but as a council member, I would require it. Transparency may be missing in this government. I do not think Fran is dishonest, but just because she is bad at one part of her job should not mean that she should get fired.
6. What could have been done differently in this case to avoid the situation entirely?
The situation may have gotten out of hand and maybe could have been addressed earlier before the run-ins started to happen between the council members and department heads. Maybe more people should have spoken up earlier. Maybe they did and the case study did not mention it. There are some unanswered questions, but maybe these issues could have been picked up in the interview process.
The government in this situation should reevaluate their interview process and see if they missed something.
There may have been candidates similar to Fran, but more personable. Finding the perfect candidate may be difficult sometimes, but I have heard of places taking the less qualified candidate for someone that has characteristics that can relate more to people. These people were still extremely qualified even if they were not ranked the highest in terms of their resumes. There are many different steps and kinds of government interviews. There are One-on-one interviews, panel interviews, phone interviews, and video interviews (go government, 2018). Many times, all of these styles are
used.
Government organizations usually have thorough interview processes and have been known to make the right decisions, at least in Wisconsin. Through my own personal experience, the process of hiring a government worker can take 4 to 12 weeks. As an intern for the City of Green Bay, I handled a lot of the paperwork in the vetting process. Fran's interview may have left out some questions that may have made the council think twice about hiring her. To avoid this situation in the future, the City Council must review its interview process. They should talk to other cities with well-respected leaders to see what their process entails. They could take tips from everyone and apply it to their city.
The debate and opinions in this case is different for every person on the council, whether it is standing up for Fran or pushing her out the door. I try to put this situation into context; trying to picture this situation in my city or village. There is quite a bit that this study leaves out, such as population and the city's historic culture, but with that being said, I still have to address the question as it is. The most important issue for the council and the city is trying to determine whether they want to continue on the path they are going, keeping the government solvent and a well-oiled machine, or try to make the government more personable again like the way it apparently …show more content…
used to be.
To continue answering the question, the outlining bones to this issue in this case study is trying to determine if the city wants to keep someone who puts good business practices over good deeds at the head of the city. This issue has to be difficult because deciding the path on which your city takes should not be taken lightly. While I feel like it is possible to have the best of both worlds, the situation needs to be addressed as stated in the case study. 2. What do you think should be done first to address this issue?
I once had to interview a City Administrator for a project in my undergraduate years at UW-Green Bay. James Fenlon was and still is the Administrator for the city of Little Chute, Wisconsin. He said to me that, "Administrators should never get comfortable because a lot of the time they get stale quickly. The city council could fire me at any moment if I became complacent or stagnant in the position," (Fenlon, 2015). With Wisconsin having a moralistic culture when it comes to government, Wisconsinites tend to care more about their government than many other states do.
I currently serve as a Trustee on my Village Board and while we do not have a full time Administrator, we do have a Village President that makes a lot of our decisions. Based on my experience in government, I would say keeping Fran would be in the city's best interest. I will share my reasons why. For one, I do not know much about this city, therefore saying what I truly think without an educated background is hard for me. I believe the best government is a government that is well-oiled and operates on a responsible budget while still providing all the services the city needs, but putting my own opinions aside, the views of this city may be different.
If I were in this situation as an elected member of the city council, the first thing I would do to address this issue would be to discuss with Fran the council's reservations with her.
If her style is hurting relationships within the government and department heads, that should be addressed by the council with her personally. Fran appears to be quite intelligent, so she should be asked to make some changes to make the government more compassionate and try to relate more to the people. This may be enough pressure for her to resign or maybe she understands what needs to get done and makes the appropriate changes. Change is a good thing in government. New ideas and fresh perspective is responsible. It keeps the government more accountable. Denhardt states in his book, Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, "Ambiguity is the enemy of decisions, as clear accountability is desirable," (Denhardt, pg. 126). This quote from his book has always stood out. Everyone has these opinions and different interpretations about Fran, which really makes the decision about how to handle her extremely …show more content…
difficult.
3. Any other steps you would take on that issue?
With the government holding Fran accountable after my suggested City Council meeting with her to express their concerns, there are further steps that could be taken. We may be getting into an issue of wasted time but hiring a new Administrator can be just as costly, if not costlier. The case study states that her, "hard-charging style had alienated department heads and spurred more than a few run-ins with the council itself." She knows that she works for the city and the people in the city to make sure that everything runs smoothly. She may need to be reminded that the Council is in charge of deciding whether she gets to keep that position or not.
I would advise the board and her to have a one-on-one sit-down discussion with every department head so that they can list their grievances. The council would oversee if she is holding these grievances against the department heads or if she is handling it professionally as I would expect her to. This would be the second step. The final step would be termination of her at the position if things did not change.
4. In addition to the primary issue you listed above, are there others that need attention?
I will expand and elaborate on the statements I made in the previous response. The relationship with Fran and the department heads and with Fran and the City Council is probably a more substantial issue for a city than what the case study highlights. While the logistics of the city seem to be moving smoothly, the relationships in the government are poor to say the least. People decide to work in government a lot of the time to be public servants and with the situation with Fran and the morale of the city's departments, this may push away good employees and government leaders. If morale is low and people are not happy, they will leave and that is bad for the city. The city could decide to fire Fran and try and hire someone who can be both good for morale and good for the health of the city. That may not be something the Council wants to partake in because a lot of things have been going so well that they do not want to be responsible for messing that up.
5. What steps do you recommend for addressing those issues?
The first step would be trying to get as much feedback from the public as possible. That is who the government is serving and working for, so they need to be talked to. A town hall meeting is one way for people to express their thought about something the government is considering doing. After taking that feedback into account, take other professional opinions into account. Many department heads and people in the government have opinions and thoughts and those could be expressed.
Like I stated before, one-on-one interaction with Fran and transparency would be the most beneficial for the city residents, Fran, and the city government. The case study does not state if she meets with these department heads or hold town halls regularly, but as a council member, I would require it. Transparency may be missing in this government. I do not think Fran is dishonest, but just because she is bad at one part of her job should not mean that she should get fired.
6. What could have been done differently in this case to avoid the situation entirely?
The situation may have gotten out of hand and maybe could have been addressed earlier before the run-ins started to happen between the council members and department heads. Maybe more people should have spoken up earlier. Maybe they did and the case study did not mention it. There are some unanswered questions, but maybe these issues could have been picked up in the interview process.
The government in this situation should reevaluate their interview process and see if they missed something.
There may have been candidates similar to Fran, but more personable. Finding the perfect candidate may be difficult sometimes, but I have heard of places taking the less qualified candidate for someone that has characteristics that can relate more to people. These people were still extremely qualified even if they were not ranked the highest in terms of their resumes. There are many different steps and kinds of government interviews. There are One-on-one interviews, panel interviews, phone interviews, and video interviews (go government, 2018). Many times, all of these styles are
used.
Government organizations usually have thorough interview processes and have been known to make the right decisions, at least in Wisconsin. Through my own personal experience, the process of hiring a government worker can take 4 to 12 weeks. As an intern for the City of Green Bay, I handled a lot of the paperwork in the vetting process. Fran's interview may have left out some questions that may have made the council think twice about hiring her. To avoid this situation in the future, the City Council must review its interview process. They should talk to other cities with well-respected leaders to see what their process entails. They could take tips from everyone and apply it to their city.