Can we make the former finance director, John Johns, an offer he can't refuse, to come back as interim city manager, clean up the finances of this town, and earn the permanent job? I know finances are tight, but with Gruber at $200K plus and Wilkerson at $190K, we could be paying him $390K and still break even. I wonder if he would do it for less.

I believe Mr. Johns has already offered to do the job for $1 per month.

Mr. Johns is clearly a stand up, well qualified guy, but there are other very highly qualified city and town managers on the Peninsula looking for new jobs.

While he would be a good choice, there is simply no need to select someone who is so radioactive to this Town Council.

Mr. John's offer to manage the town is likely him just exacting a well deserved taunt.
He is employed by Mr, Buckheit who is in litigation with Atherton and would therefore have extreme conflict of interest. I don't think he could possible be serious about even actually wanting the job.
Would you?

You're right. The ones with the conflict of interests are Buckheit, Johns, and McKeithen.

Not the cops, who take more than half the budget, and are spending that money to ensure they don't get outsourced through newsletters, press releases and the like.

Nor the real estate developers, who have made tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds, building property in Atherton and filing a lawsuit whenever the rules get in the way of a profit.

Nor council members like Jerry Carlson, who is suing High Speed Rail to preserve the value of his own home.

Nor Charles Marsala...or Elizabeth Lewis.

Yeah, let's keep the conflict accusations where they really belong, against Buckheit, Johns and McKeithen.

POGO:

perhaps a little radioactivity is in order when it comes to this council. They do use radiation for cancer don't they?

If Johns applies and doesn't get the job, Atherton will have to prove to a federal judge that Johns wasn't as well qualified as the candidate selected. That will be a very tough thing to do.

He's got an outstanding resume and has not one but two awards for his service. Jerry Carlson gave him the Citizen of the year award when he was president of the ACIL back in 2004 and McKeithen signed a certificate of commendation. No other current or former employee can claim both awards.

Johns also has six years of service with the town, a time during which the Town's reserves went from $6 million to $12 million. It is also widely recognized that Johns cleaned up the Finance Department, the Building Department and he got the Audit Committee to endorse the parcel tax.

POGO might say he's radioactive. That's too bad. He deserves a shot because of his credentials and past performance with the Town.

Ditto to Mr. Irving's suggestion to evaluate each and every position and clear the decks if warranted. We need to hire bright, responsible individuals who are motivated to get things done right in a professional, timely, cost effective manner. We need to clear out the life-long bureaucrats who feel no sense of responsibility to act ethically and productively.

This shakeup is long overdue.

For too long the City Council has praised an underperforming management team. Now is the time for accountability and action.

Fire the assistant city manager and everyone else Gruber brought in. Gruber had a policy of hiring nobody who was smarter or more talented than he was.

Not funny -

Since when do employers have to answer to federal judges for their hiring decisions? I'm not aware of anything in Mr. Johns' settlement agreement that REQUIRES the Town to hire him, only that he is allowed to apply - which, by the way, only requires a pen. What judge is going to hear this? What's the cause of action?

While I like Mr. Johns a lot, hiring him isn't a hill that anyone needs to die on. There are a lot of excellent candidates out there who are capable of doing an excellent job.

Dear Pogo

Johns has a case similar to a major element in Jon Buckheit's case in federal court, that being denial of one's due process rights. If Atherton rejects Johns' application in favor of a lesser qualified candidate, the fact pattern will be quite similar to what Buckheit has complained about.

In Buckheit's case, Carlson voted against Buckheit on his appointment to the Finance Committee because Buckheit had initiated a suit against the Town. The town left this position vacant, rather than let Buckheit sit on the committee.

As far as finding a good candidate, the Town will be hard pressed to do so if past experience is the case. The fact that Gruber, was the successful finalist, given his less than stellar resume and the cloud that hung over his previous job is a pretty good indication of the limited gene pool from which Atherton has available to draw upon.

Sure the economy is lousy and there are lots of good candidates out there. However Atherton is not a very attractive prospective employer and Johns does have excellent credentials.

Mr. Levy-
So your saying, give the job to Johns because no one more qualified will want it, and if the Town hires someone else, Johns will sue over it? Boy, that sounds like the start of a really healthy work environment.
You have pretty low standards. Threat of (another ) lawsuit should disqualify him outright.

No, Atherton Taxpayer, I think what Mr. Levy is saying is that it would be illegal for Atherton to not consider Mr. Johns for the job based on his history of (successful) litigation with Atherton. I believe Mr. Johns was offered more money in settlement if he would agree not to apply for any future jobs in Atherton, and he declined and took less settlement money.

Yes, it would be legal for Atherton to hire a "better candidate". Given Mr. Johns' resume - he is obviously qualified - and offer to work for $1/month, unless there is another candidate willing to work for such a low amount of money, how could Atherton justify passing Mr. Johns over but for the sour taste in certain mouths over his previous petitions for redress of his grievances?

Think about it. The law that governs this is actually pretty important. The point is that if your rights are violated by the government, and you go to court to get vindicated, the government cannot hold that against you in future dealings with it. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Would you rather have it another way? Seriously?

Dave Levy -

Thank you for your post.

There's a very big difference between Not Funny stating "Atherton will have to prove to a federal judge that Johns wasn't as well qualified as the candidate selected" and the comment that Mr. Johns MAY sue the town if he isn't hired. Stating that Atherton will have to answer to a judge for their hiring decision is different than saying a jilted candidate may sue. As we know only too well, you can't stop someone from suing the Town of Atherton. Around here, suing Atherton has become a spectator sport. What I have questioned is Mr. Johns' possible cause of action in a lawsuit. Discrimination? I honestly can't think of a thing.

Remember, I like Mr. Johns - I just think his insertion into this mess is both improbable and unwise. There are several City Managers, Town Managers and Assistant Managers on the peninsula who are well qualified for the Atherton position. And, as I said before, they don't carry the baggage that Mr. Johns brings.

Just because you don't get hired for a job doesn't mean you win lawsuits. Far from it. It's just too easy to justify a hire - they live closer, interviewed better, had more relevant skills, etc. Many of these attributes are subjective and, in my experience, not entertained by plaintiff's attorneys or judges.

If I understand Mr. Johns' settlement accurately, it entitles him to APPLY for a job in Atherton - it doesn't entitle him to be hired.

I think Atherton needs to move on. That means a new Council majority and some new staff. The less baggage, the better.

Mr. Levy,
I think your point is well made, and in no way do I think that Mr Johns can be prevented from applying (or going to meetings, or calling council members late at night, or any of the other protected speech rights he freely exercises.) I do however think that it is reasonable for the Council to express a desire for new candidates who don't bring baggage and animosity towards some residents and council members. Mr Johns can argue that he has no baggage, and the Council can decide if that is true or not. If the Council decided that one requisite for the job was previous experience as a Town Manager (reasonable I would argue) then that does not prevent Mr Johns from applying, but it does give them grounds for not offering him the job. I am not a lawyer, and as we all know, Atherton is a soft target for lawsuits! The $1.00/month really makes me wonder what his motivations really are. Would he stay on Mr Buckheit's payroll? Would he move into the City Manager's house? Would he still have to file FOI requests or could he rummage through all the files he wants without any limitations... maybe that is his goal- access to everyone's files!

Since August 2007, Atherton has been a train wreck in slow motion.
It is time to find someone who can put the train back on the tracks and get it moving again.
By no means should Atherton think about promoting from within its own ranks. This would only prompt a continuation of this slow moving catastrophe in progress.
What about bringing in new blood to council, and management. Someone with no history with the town will make all the difference in the world to the people of Atherton, and to the staff.

Someone who has years of experience with the Bay Area. Someone who has worked with other cities when it comes to issues. The High Speed Rail isn't only an Atherton problem. We need to work together with up coming issues with other towns, and communities. Check Cary Wiest's references. He has years of experience working with communities in this area. Vote for who can bring the most to the table with the least amount of baggage.
Cary Wiest (650) 357-7122
We need a fresh start.!!!
cwiest4council@gmail.com

Mayor McKeithen said the council will also address the question of naming an interim manager. As for Mr. Johns' and Mr. Buckheit's proposals, she wasn't enthused.
"People have even said that I should be city manager," she said, "and I say absolutely not."

The town, she said, needs a manager "who has no baggage. ... All of us have too much baggage. And the propensity is always to bring even a little piece of that baggage forward.
"We need a fresh start," she said. Someone with no history with the town "will make all the difference in the world to the people of Atherton, and to the staff.

The Town Council - and any other employer for that matter - can hire anyone they want for any reason they choose. Period.

There is no objective measure for hiring and, other than discrimination (which is clearly not at issue here), no court is going to second guess an employer's hiring decision. No court is even going to hear the case because a jilted candidate has no legal cause of action. You're suing because you didn't get the job? Really?

The fact that Mr. Johns or Mr. Buckheit won't charge for their services is irrelevant. But the fact that neither of their resumes includes a single minute as a City or Town Managers is highly relevant. The fact that one of them is engaged in a lawsuit against the Town is also relevant. Would you hire someone who is suing you to run your business? That's a perfectly legitimate reason for exclusion. Mr. Buckheit and Mr. Johns should shut down the fantasy - they are not going to be hired.

As I've said before, there are several good local candidates out there who are more than capable of sorting out Atherton's mess. The real question will be if the enjoy the support of the Council and if they will be afforded independence.

POGO says: "But the fact that neither of their resumes includes a single minute as a City or Town Managers is highly relevant."

I don't want to argue with you about conflicts of interest, etc. On the other hand, I believe someone with private sector experience is desperately needed to run the Town of Atherton. Lack of public sector experience should be viewed as a benefit. Someone who views the demands of unions as not just a fact of life, but a problem to be worked around and solved. Someone who is not used to running an unbalanced budget. And, most importantly, someone who truly understands who his or her customer is.

Dear POGO, despite your claim to the contrary, discrimination is precisely the issue here.

McKeithen has said anyone with a history with the Town need not apply. Would Mike Hood, Jim Robinson, Bob Brennan, Cliff Temps or Sharon Barker like to be disqualified for remployment with the Town because they, like me resigned in good standing?

Would Duncan Jones, Steve Tyler, Elizabeth Ho, Elaine Wilkerson, or Chief Guerra object to being denied the opportunity to compete for the position of City Manager because of their "baggage"? I dare say that they would if they could be assured that they would not be retaliated against for speaking out against the Mayor.

Did Kathy McKeithen stop for a moment to consider that Peter Carpenter, Alan Carlson, Jim Janz, Malcom Dudley or her good friend Carol Smith might make an excellent choice for city manager (either permanent or interim)? Probably not.

McKeithen has painted everyone who lives in town or works for or has worked for the town with the same brush. She has disqualfied an entire category of prospective applicants from submitting their C.V.s by virtue of their past association with the Town. This is most unfortunate.

It is because I along with other highly qualified candidates are being discriminated against that I respectfully request Ms. McKeithen repudiates her statement and issue a public apology for he "baggage" comment.

McKeithen lived through the era of the civil rights movement and the free speech movement. She ought to know better.

As that Alaskan beauty queen turned governer said, you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

Kathy McKeithen can say excluding those who have any prior relationship with the town a \"fresh start\" or a policy decision. However it is still discrimination.

Get a grip Atherton before somebody else sues the shirt off your backs. It\'s your parcel tax money.

"It is because I along with other highly qualified candidates are being discriminated against"

Mr. Johns. You certainly have NOT been discriminated against. As far as I am aware applications for the City Manager position have not been opened yet. Therefore you cannot have even applied for the position.

As far as free speech is concerned, the Mayor has every right, indeed a responsibility, to express her views as to the kind of Town Manager she wants, including her desire to see a new Town Manager that carries no prior baggage.

[Post removed. Please discuss the topic, and don't attack or characterize other posters. Thank you.]

[Post deleted. This is speculation. Besides the full council decides who the interim manager might be, not just one council member, even one with the title of mayor.]