Read this as Bill keeping his job by a 3-2 vote. One change in a council seat this fall, and Bill is out job hunting.

I do have to say that it is rather embarrassing to read that the council solicited input of "members of the community" concerning his job performance. Maybe some of our council members didn't get the memo, the city manager works for you, not the community. You sign his paycheck. You hire and fire him.

I'm wondering how many other people in Roseville received their latest job performance review based upon input from "members of the community."

No such vote was taken or even suggested. And I am not in the least bit embarrassed about informing my opinion on my employee's job performance by asking others with whom he works what their impressions are. My boss asks my coworkers and my customers about me before he reviews my performance. I wouldn't expect anything else.

Dan, it is no state secret that Bill keeps his job on a 3-2 vote. If that is a surprise to you, then you are not communicating very well with some of your fellow council members.

It is also no state secret that in politics, you don't call for the vote on firing someone until the 3 votes are lined up. If you don't have the votes lined up, then you end up with the public relations debacle that occurred last week in the City of Ramsey.

Dan, does your boss go out to random people out in the community and ask how you are doing in your job? No he/she does not. So why do you do this for the employee that you hire? It makes no sense.

You state that your boss asks coworkers. If you read my comments carefully, you will note that I made no comment about you asking employees about Bill's job performance. My comments are about this asking the "community". That, from an employment perspective, an employer-employee relationship, is ridiculous.

So who are these privileged "members of the community" that were consulted? It seems to me that doing this was more about pandering to certain special interest groups and scoring political points. Or maybe it was done to sway the outcome.

I have a feeling that if you asked the "members of he community" who are friendly with one council member I have in mind, Bill would be thrown out of the building.

I should also add that it is no state secret that Council Member Pust gave away the farm when she wrote up that sweetheart deal of an employment contract that Bill has. Remember that it started out on day two when being on the second day of the job, Bill got the cost of living increase that all the other employees got. He got that with only two days on the job! That raise was worth at least $3000.

How many people get a $3000 raise on the second day of starting a new job?

Then Pust put in a 6 month golden parachute severance package where Bill walks away with a cool $70,000 cash if you get rid of him for practically any reason. Only him being thrown in prison would probably allow you to get out of paying that.

Everyone who was asked to fill in the evaluation questionnaire regarding Bill's performance was someone who had enough interaction with Bill over the last year in order to have some basis for evaluating his performance. Participation was anonymous and blind to other participants. It is simply ridiculous to assert that the extremely small portion of that feedback that came from residents is completely irrelevant, or that it somehow improperly drove the conclusions that councilmembers came to on their own about Bill's performance. It is even more ridiculous to suggest that the selection of the participants had anything to do with "pandering to certain special interest groups" or "scoring political points."

As to this theoretical 3-2 vote, it is purely speculation. A vote is only a vote if it actually happens. How each person might vote if such a vote were to happen would be a function of their understanding of the issues at the time. Nobody is proposing such a vote, so I am not concerning myself with that.

If the farm was given away in approving Bill's employment contract in 2006, it was done so unanimously without modification by the city council that was sitting at that time (Ihlan, Kough, Maschka, Pust, and Klausing).

Dan, for the second time, my comments are directed at those "in the community" who did this evaluation. It is unclear from your response if you are mixing these two groups together.

Maybe you could further your position if you made the selection of these "community members"? Please provide the public a list of names and a copy of their evaluations.

I find it interesting that you feel that anonymous or blind participation is going to yield feedback that has any value. Let me give you an example. Let's say you send an evaluation to the Superintendent of Schools. Do you honestly believe that he is going to say anything negative? Are you foolish enough to believe that any of these so called secret "community members" are going to say anything critical or even somewhat negative? Frankly, it would be highly unprofessional if any of them did. It is unethical to evaluate the job performance of an employee who you do not work for, and does not work for you. Clearly you have never owned your own business or have ever employed anyone or you would not suggest that this is somehow legitimate.

My guess is that this list is made up of people who you would have reason to score political points with. That is the only reason left for doing a process like this.

Dan, if you are so sure that Bill has a 5-0 vote, then have the backbone and call a public vote. Call for a vote of confidence if you are so sure of your opinion. That will set the record straight.

Dan, if you read my comments carefully, I made it crystal clear that Pust was the one who gave away the farm when it came to Bill's sweetheart employment contract. I doubt that every one of the other 4 council members was aware that he got a pay raise on day two. In addition, I have heard complaints about Pust giving Bill a contract with absolutely no expiration date. For goodness sakes, Pust is an attorney and should have known better.

As a professional, I can say that it is totally NOT unprofessional to respond honestly and to the best of one's knowledge to a request for impressions about how someone I have a working relationship with does their job. Nor would I say that it is at all unethical. It is not at all illegitimate to seek such feedback as one relatively small part of an overall evaluation process. It is insulting to suggest that we on the council are not sophisticated enough to take the feedback we received in this process in the context of the type of source it came from. So what if some or all of that feedback is not negative? Is only negative feedback valuable? I can say that we received both positive and negative comments about Bill from all of the various evaluators, and all were taken into account to create the overall picture.

I am proud to say that I had not even conceived of a way that it is even possible to "score political points" via this process. Never even entered my mind.

Just like any employee in any sector, the "vote of confidence" for a city manager comes from continuing in employment. (Usually with an open-ended employment contract -- just like the one I have had with my employer since 1990.) That is the record, and it is clear. I have no doubt that, should any other action become necessary, it would be taken at the appropriate time.

thank you dan and john for the back and forth discussion of a very important topic. though, dan, your last comment has a large number of double negatives, making it a bit harder for us readers to follow easily. - my nitpick for the day! LOL - though i could jokingly blame my difficulty with my 623 K-12 education, but i don't want to leave an impression that anything is wrong with a 623 educaton.

Dan, can you tell me how many times you have been contacted by the supervisor of a person who you have met on occasion, through your work, who has no relationship with your company, and contacts you to ask you to evaluate their employee? Just saying this sounds totally ridiculous.

Your defense is that you are taking this factor into context when you review these evaluations. Frankly that is no defense. Saying that you will give little weight to information collected in a ridiculous fashion still makes it completely ridiculous.

Balanced feedback is valuable, and you will only get that if you have process that allows for this. That certainly wasn't the case here.

Unfortunately Dan, we can't figure out what is going through your mind. All we can do is judge you is on your actions. The only reason to ask "members of the community" to evaluate your employee is to score political points. You are making these people feel important. You are giving them the impression that you are empowering them. Hopefully they don't read your comments that you have taken their input lightly.

A "vote of confidence" isn't letting someone continue in their employment. If I recall correctly, the Superintendent has a contract with a fixed term. It gets renewed from time to time. That is a "vote of confidence". When is the last time Bill got a vote beyond the one to hire him?

There is no comparing your job with Bill's. Bill is a government political appointee.