A wrong conclusion

From the amount of feedback I’ve received indicating that I’m “greedy,” I believe some readers of the July 7 Sun Journal article, “Auburn manager receives pay raise, contract extended,” misinterpreted my statement, “I love the city of Auburn, but I think I deserve a little better than this.”

The Sun Journal editor highlighted the quote in a pullout box, but when read along with the headline, it’s no wonder people concluded or thought I was being greedy. The headline and the quote were two different thoughts but when combined or read as one, it led the reader to the wrong conclusion.

The comment had nothing to do with wages. It had everything to do with the fact the City Council would not enter into a legal executive session to complete my evaluation. My raise was for last year and consistent with what other eligible employees received. Since I was hired at the end of a fiscal year, I was one of the last to be reviewed.

An efficiently managed city starts with a strong supportive relationship between the City Council and city manager. The evaluation process fosters that relationship as it gives both parties an opportunity to discuss performance, expectations, goals and more; all within a private setting, which is permissible by law.

My quote, “I love the city of Auburn, but I think I deserve a little better than this,” was in response to the City Council not completing my evaluation. I really could not fathom why they wouldn’t complete it.

As an employee of the city, I deserve to have an evaluation, in private, just as other employees do in the city, and everywhere else for that matter. I was disappointed that my evaluation was not complete, but very pleased with having the honor of continuing my service, and also for being recognized for the work this position requires.

People interested in becoming a city manager, or interested in the work involved with being Auburn’s city manager should contact me; the work is certainly not what most people think.

I am very appreciative to the city for giving me the greatest employment opportunity I’ve had thus far. As the city manager, I work to ensure operations are held accountable and managed efficiently, which saves taxpayers' money.

Our efforts this past year would have resulted in a 30-cent decrease in the tax rate, had state revenues been received as projected. The city and its employees work very hard and all within a very demanding and accountable work environment established from the top down.

We are not perfect, but we are more aggressive about improving than any other local government I know.

Many governmental units have the perception their employees are unmotivated. That’s not the case in Auburn. We continue to review operations, improve them and instill greater levels of accountability; all so that we have a better government that is accountable to the citizens.

Glenn Aho, Auburn city manager

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Aho

I agree with Mom , apay raise when already making 100+K is greedy!

Joe Gray's picture

Dempsey Challenge debate misunderstood

Conserva-mom you are completely wrong in your statement. The councilors involved both went out of their way to state emphatically that they like the Dempsey Challenge and the Dempsey Center. Both councilors commented on the fine work the center does and were appreciative of it's contributions to the area. What they opposed was paying for the Challenge out of taxpayer funds.

As stated by others, the councilors objected to paying taxpayer money to support a fundraiser that will net about $2,000,000. The total the challenge was asking for, including police, public works, and parks and rec help, along with trash clean up and disposal, waiving of all permitting and licensing fees totalled about $6,000 or so. This isn't much, but it is still taxpayer money that is not being used to directly benefit the taxpayer. It is benefitting business in the area so perhaps the area Chamber of Commerce could help with expenses. Of perhaps the sponsoring businesses could pick up the costs.

Further, why should the taxpayers of the area subsidize this cause? And where do we draw the line? Should we be asked to shoulder the costs of all fundraisers that seek it?

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...