I have a soft spot for the Olympic Peninsula, a truly beautiful corner of Pacific Northwest. Years ago, a recruiter contacted me about the city manager position in Sequim (pronounced "skwim"). I have not kept close track of the small coastal city, but my spouse recently noticed something on her news feed. That led me to this op-ed piece.
There's a good bit to unpack here. The departing city manager, Charlie Bush, reportedly has (or had) an employment agreement with the City. If he is terminated for anything other than cause, he apparently receives six months pay as severance. If he resigns voluntarily, he gets nothing. What is this nonsense about "negotiating a resignation"?
The City of Sequim is legally obligated to pay Bush under the terms of the contract. Bush has no incentive to negotiate away money to which he is presumably entitled. The City may have some interest in a separation agreement with some nondisclosure language, i.e., both sides agree to say nothing bad about the other. The separation agreement itself is a public document so there's a limit to how much can be swept under the rug.
A city manager (or county administrator) serves at the pleasure of the governing body, normally a City Council or Board of Commissioners. Given the uncertainty of local elections, most local governments Chief Administrative Officers (or CAOs) wisely insist on a written employment agreement. The idea behind severance is the very real prospect that a CAO who has been doing a good job can be dismissed for absolutely no reason. If one believes the local news coverage (and outpouring of support from Sequim residents), that seems to be the case for Mr. Bush.
One of the problems with severance is that a governing body can balk at paying the negotiated sum. A colleague of mine had a contract guaranteeing nine months' severance. His Mayor and Council only paid five. Most CAOs need to move onto another job and cannot afford the time and cost of a legal fight. My proposal: Add a provision that any portion of severance wrongly withheld is subject to triple damages and the local government paying all legal fees. That provision creates an incentive for the jurisdiction to honor the contract bargained in good faith.
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I think local government has changed over the past 25 years and not for the better. The harsh partisan acrimony at the state and federal level has leached into the groundwater of local government. The toxicity and omnipresence of social media has made running for local office far less appealing. The job of the local government CAO has become harder and more tenuous. It is in the interest of good governance for municipal and county administrators to have solid employment agreements.
