Bad Management, No Leadership

The author, teacher and management guru Peter Drucker once defined the difference between Management and Leadership. He said,

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”

It’s too bad we seem to have neither within the Administration of the City of Trenton. Leadership is WAAAAYYY too much to ask for, I know.  I’d settle for some good, basic, competent management, but even that seems in scant supply these days. The Administration just does not have the knack of doing things right.

Case in point: this article in today’s Trenton Times by Erin Duffy, reporting that the Administration and the Indicted Occupant of Trenton’s Mayor’s Office “are fighting to overturn a state Civil Service Commission ruling that ordered a Mack confidante be laid off and replaced by a former security guard who lost his job two years ago.” The case in question is that of laid-off City Park Ranger Michael Morris. Last month the NJ Civil Service Commission agreed with Mr. Morris that he was laid off to make room for a loyal supporter of the IO (and there aren’t too many of those left around!), Robert “Chico” Mendez. The Commission ordered that Morris be reinstated and Mendez let go.

Of course, the Administration ignored the ruling. Mr. Mendez is still on the city payroll. Mr. Morris should also be back on the payroll, per the Commission’s order, but that hasn’t happened. Today we read in Ms. Duffy’s article that the City will file an appeal to the April Civil Service ruling.

Here’s the part about not even being able to do things right. The City intends to appeal the Civil Service Commission’s ruling even though the City failed to make a case in the original hearing! In the Times article by Alex Zdan last month announcing the ruling, we read “The Civil Service decision shows the city did not respond to ‘numerous opportunities and requests’ to submit any response to fight the case.” [Emphasis mine – KM]

When given multiple opportunities to do so during the original case before the Commission, the City did not take any action, produced not one document to support its position, and apparently offered not one argument why Mr. Morris should not have gotten his job back.

Now, since the City doesn’t like the result, it will appeal. On what basis? I don’t know.

I am not familiar with the mechanisms the Civil Service Commission engages to hear these matters, so I found this Q&A page on the Civil Service Commission’s home on the State’s website, which discusses the appeals process. One section reads,

In General: What if I Disagree with the Civil Service Commission Decision on My Appeal (Any Appeal)?

You may file a request with the Civil Service Commission for reconsideration of its decision [N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6] within 45 days of receiving it. You must show one of two things: new evidence or additional information not previously presented to the Civil Service Commission which would change the result of the appeal, plus the reason that this evidence was not presented earlier; or that the Civil Service Commission decision was a clear, material error. All copies of correspondence and other documents that you provide to the Civil Service Commission must also be provided to all other parties in the appeal.

Instead of a request for reconsideration, or following receipt of a Commission decision in a request for reconsideration, you may file a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court, Appellate Division, within 45 days. [Emphasis mine. – KM]

The Times article this morning is unclear (probably because the Administration is itself confused about it) whether the City will appeal back to the Commission, or whether it will take the case right to Superior Court.

But I would imagine that in either venue the City will have a hard time if it tries to introduce new material or make any new arguments. I can just hear a Commissioner, or a Judge, asking, “So, why exactly did the City fail to introduce this evidence earlier? Why did the City fail to make any argument in the first hearing? Hmmmmm????”

I can hear those question in my mind, but for the life of me I cannot conceive of how the City will reply!

The City has totally fucked up the Michael Morris situation. He should never have been laid off. Mr. Mendez should never have been hired in his place. Morris should be reinstated. Mendez should be let go. The City didn’t even try to make any argument before the Civil Service Commission. That failure, plus the strength of Morris’ case, meant the City lost.

Now the City will spend even more time, and spend even more money, in pursuit of a ruling it will never get. The Commission knows it. The media know it. Mr. Morris and his lawyers know it. The City’s own outside lawyers probably know it. You know it. But the Administration refuses to acknowledge it. And so this farce will continue for at least several weeks or months more, toward a conclusion that really is in no doubt.

In the grand scheme of things in this City, this is one small matter. But the fact that the Administration cannot even get this small matter right is typical of the utter non-existence of any semblance of sound management in City Hall.

They just can’t do things right.

With this inability, it is too much to ask that anything akin to Leadership for this town be exhibited by the Administration. Sure enough, we will not read about that in another Times piece this morning. This article, also by Ms. Duffy, narrates how in the aftermath of City Council’s meeting Tuesday in which Council failed to approve the latest funding request from the managing board of the Lafayette Yard Hotel, the City is now looking to meet with the State’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to discuss the future of the hotel.

What the article describes to me is an administration in panic mode about the hotel. Council, or at least a 4-person majority, seems to be dead set against approving any more city funding for the loss-making property. DCA announced on Tuesday that it opposes any more funding until they see “a clear, concrete, written plan spelling out how the hotel will become profitable and find the estimated $3 million needed for a renovation.” Such plan being nowhere in sight.

The City’s Business Administrator Sam Hutchinson is quoted today as saying the City has no ability to come up with the needed $3 Million to renovate and upgrade the hotel. And the State, as discussed in this space over the last few days, is already paying off $18 Million in Bonds it issued for the hotel, as well as holding another $9 Million in loans directly to the hotel. I don’t think the State will be a likely source for any additional financing, either, after dumping $27 Million and counting into the place.

About the only likely role I see for the State is with assisting in closing the hotel, preparing the property for sale to a commercial party, and assisting in helping the City to deal with the financial fallout of paying off the remaining bills and long-term debt.

Although the State probably doesn’t prefer to see the hotel close for even a little while, memories of the Quarter-Billion dollar investment it made with the failed Revel casino and the ongoing problems with the Xanadu project are still fresh in the public mind, and will likely make the State of New Jersey a little leery of getting involved with another hotel project.

A display of Leadership at this moment, on this issue, would mean the IO standing up and saying, “The City tried to make the hotel work. But after a dozen years and more, in a good economy and bad, it is just not working. It would be irresponsible for this Administration and this City to add to an already intolerable burden of debt and put one more dollar into a municipally-owned hotel. Therefore, I am asking City Council to withhold any further appropriations to the hotel, and I also request the Lafayette Yard Hotel Board to cease operations as soon as practical, wind up remaining obligations, and seek the best possible terms for a sale. I will ask the State to assist us in this process.”

Of course, we will never hear that from the Indicted Occupant. He doesn’t have it in him. The other night, when Councilwoman Kathy McBride called him “a figurehead,” she unwittingly hit the nail right on the head. Since the day he took office, and certainly well before he was indicted on federal criminal charges, he has been somewhat more than a figurehead:  he has indeed personally taken actions and made policies, but those have almost all been foolish, malicious, wasteful, or all three. Some may have been criminal, as we may find out later this summer.

But overall, the man has presided over three years of drift, decline and decay. He has been a figurehead, content to smile and wave at numerous ribbon-cuttings, dedications, and photo opportunities, while the city around him spirals further downwards.

I can’t wait for him to be gone. But, in the midst of all these problems, those who would replace him, and who have openly declared their candidacies for next year’s elections, are mostly all silent themselves on these matters. More on that in the next post.