Copeland's Package
One commenter this morning asked, "How much is Copeland being paid?"
Here's the relevant text Hjelle's motion to hire him (from the minutes on the Maplewood city website):
A couple of observations.
1. Previously, the mayor said that Copeland's salary was $78,000, so this permanent appointment came with a generous 9% salary increase.
2. Hjelle implied in his remarks before the motion that by making the appointment probationary for a year, he was giving voters the chance to express their view of the manager in next year's city council elections. However, his actual motion requires that Copeland's probationary status go away before the November elections -- "no later than October 31, 2007."
3. Once they remove the "probationary" tag, Copeland is entitled to the same 6 months' severance package that the Longristas have described as "giving away the farm" when it applied to Fursman.
I wonder if it's coincidence that $85,000 plus half that again for a severance package adds up just about to what Fursman's annual salary was. It's like they want to be able to claim they are saving money, while actually arranging to pay their pal as much as his predecessor for the full year job they can guarantee him, if the next council fires him.
The way around the golden parachute, of course, is for the 2008 council to terminate Copeland for cause. Every instance of his incompetence that citizens document is a tool toward that end.
Here's the relevant text Hjelle's motion to hire him (from the minutes on the Maplewood city website):
"Councilmember Hjelle moved under Section 2-101 of the Maplewood City Code, appoint and hire Mr. Copland as the permanent Maplewood City Manager, with 1 year probation, starting tomorrow, at a yearly salary of $85,000 including benefits currently given. The council will give Mr. Copeland a mid-year job performance review no later than June 1, 2007. A salary review will occur after successful completion of an additional job performance review no later than October 31, 2007. After satisfactory completion of his probationary period, Mr. Copeland will be entitled to receive 6 months pay and benefits if terminated by the council for any reason other than cause."
A couple of observations.
1. Previously, the mayor said that Copeland's salary was $78,000, so this permanent appointment came with a generous 9% salary increase.
2. Hjelle implied in his remarks before the motion that by making the appointment probationary for a year, he was giving voters the chance to express their view of the manager in next year's city council elections. However, his actual motion requires that Copeland's probationary status go away before the November elections -- "no later than October 31, 2007."
3. Once they remove the "probationary" tag, Copeland is entitled to the same 6 months' severance package that the Longristas have described as "giving away the farm" when it applied to Fursman.
I wonder if it's coincidence that $85,000 plus half that again for a severance package adds up just about to what Fursman's annual salary was. It's like they want to be able to claim they are saving money, while actually arranging to pay their pal as much as his predecessor for the full year job they can guarantee him, if the next council fires him.
The way around the golden parachute, of course, is for the 2008 council to terminate Copeland for cause. Every instance of his incompetence that citizens document is a tool toward that end.
posted by Frostbrand @ 3:28 PM
19 Comments:
At 8:42 PM,
Anonymous said…
Wait a minute."For cause"???
What happened to "At Will"???
Mr. Fursman was an at will employee.
They changed it to make it hard to fire their buddy???
Didn't they just change the entire city policy to at will and remove for cause for the rest of the city employees??
Am I wrong? please eloborate.
At 10:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Frostbrand:
Mr. Brilliant IS saving us money! There is NO WAY that his 6-month free ride will survive the "for cause" clause. He has screwed up so much that there is no way he can avoid being terminated for cause. And, the best part...he has done it so publicly.
Let's run down the list. The Karen Guilfoile break-in fiasco, the botched Sherie Le firing (and subsequent lawsuit), the "reorganization" of organizing employees, the Banick mess (and subsequent lawsuit), the hide-the-important-facts budget. We probably also have some open meeting violations that we can throw in for good measure.
As I have said before, the Guiness commercial sums it up perfectly...
BRILLIANT!
At 10:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 8:42:
Didn't copeland's for cause clause come when there still was a for cause clause? Maybe we should start referring to hjelle as Santa Claus. As in Santa "for cause" claus(e).
At 10:49 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Regarding other city employees, it's just not clear to me where those things stand right now, so I don't know (a) what the Longristas say the city policy is now, or (b) whether that policy will stand up in court when it's exercised.
Copeland, like Fursman, can be let go without any reason. However, once the council votes to change his status away from "probationary" (which according to the motion they passed must occur no later than October 31st), if he is let go without cause he will be entitled to 6 months' severance.
I guess, if the council decided to let him go prior to that, he wouldn't get any severance. It seems hard to imagine that happening unless there's a resignation or other event that removes Hjelle, Cave or Longrie from the council; or if he inexplicably defies their wishes.
Still, it's interesting that this council majority is reserving for themselves the freedom to give Copeland the boot without a financial farewell kiss. They've just set it up so that as long as he does their bidding, he's pretty much guaranteed the reward of a cushy bonus at the expense of the 2008 council and all of us Maplewood taxpayers.
Maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's the Longristas cleverly keeping their minion securely under their thumb for as long as they can be sure they need him.
I'm hesitant to ascribe that much craftiness to Hjelle, but then I wouldn't be surprised if Longrie drafted the actual motion for him.
Come to think of it, if Hjelle made a motion that Diana actually wrote, that would explain why his speechifying, talking about the voters and the idea they would have a chance to make the Nov. 07 elections into a referendum on Copeland, flatly contradicted the details of the actual motion he put before the council. (Or maybe he just doesn't know what month elections are held?)
Maybe he actually thought he was putting it up to this fall's voters, and didn't look closely enough to see that Diana was playing him for her own ends. After all, it would have been even less seemly if Diana herself had made the motion. This way Diana can reward Copeland, but also keep him firmly under her thumb; and Erik gets a lot of the heat for making the motion.
So I guess either Hjelle was disingenuous in telling voters he intended to give them a chance to weigh in on Copeland, or he is, as the kids say, Diana's bee-yatch.
At 8:27 AM,
Anonymous said…
"For Cause" means he gets no severence, "At Will" termination means he gets the severence, that's the way it works in most other cities anyway..... But then again this is Longriewood. On the plus side, (with Copeland's hiring)the taxpayers of Minnesota don't have to pay for welfare for someone who has no marketable skills or apparent ability to do anything other than pontificate the GOP line.
At 3:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
Copeland's Package? I bet in reality Copeland has a small package.
At 11:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
It would be nice if people actually got familiar with the law before coming to crazy conclusions.
All city managers are "at will" employees as defined by state law. The council cannot change these rules because they are set by the state legislature. Yes, people like Wiger and Lillie.
The "for cause" clause is the standard phrase that is used in all of these employment agreements across the state. Again, state law addresses the issues of severance clauses. There is a category for average compensated employees (who get up to 1 year) and highly compensated employees (who get up to 6 months).
Are firing employees, conducting reorganizations, etc. "cause". The answer is probably no. If the manager directly stole money from the city, or if he just quit showing up to work, then that would be "cause".
The "cause" language didn't come from Santa. It probably came from attorneys working for the manager's association. They work for managers to squeeze city councils for every dime they can get.
There should be a contract that was signed by the mayor and the manager. This governs the employment policy, not various chit chat at council meetings. Get the contract and you will have your answers.
Read the law concerning probationary periods. I believe the law sets it at 1 year. So it should be one year since the manager set foot into the building. This probationary period involves his right to call a public hearing and a list of charges prior to termination.
For those worked up about giving Copeland the 6 months severance after he serves for a 6 month probationary period, take a look at Roseville. Over there they did what many cities do. Their new manager (according to the newspaper) gets 6 months severance after NO probationary period. Yes, over there they could fire their manager after 2 days on the job and they would owe him $57,000. They probably would also owe him the money they offered for moving expenses. So complain all you want about Maplewood, but they put much more stringent standards than most other cities do.
Is Copeland being set up for a cushy bonus at the expense of maplewood taxpayers? Get with it! This is the city manager game all over this country. As long as voters want city manager form of government, then this is what you will get. In Saint Paul, when the voters fired Randy Kelly (who essentially holds the position of city manager there), he didn't get one red cent. No severance. No lifetime health insurance, etc. Who controls our form of government in Maplewood? We the voters do, not the city council.
The comment that "for cause" means you get no severance is pretty much the standard. But again, "for cause" in this state often times means that they were intentionally and knowingly doing something illegal, not doing something that others did not like.
I love the closing comment on "the package". It shows the adult nature of those who visit this forum.
At 9:54 AM,
Anonymous said…
See, here I was trying to *not* get that mental picture in my head.
At 10:10 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Hello, 64.131.7.123.
> There should be a contract that was
> signed by the mayor and the manager.
> This governs the employment policy,
> not various chit chat at council
> meetings.
Are you saying that Hjelle's formal motion recorded in the minutes is just "chit chat"? At what meeting did the specific contract you reference get reviewed and approved by the council?
> Read the law concerning
> probationary periods.
Can you give us a link to the law? I'd be interested in reading it.
> I believe the law sets it at 1
> year. So it should be one year
> since the manager set foot into
> the building.
Interesting. Well, Oct. 31 2007 is neither one year since Copeland's "set foot into the building" day (back in April), nor one year from the day Hjelle made that motion.
> For those worked up about giving
> Copeland the 6 months severance
...
> Is Copeland being set up for a
> cushy bonus at the expense of
> maplewood taxpayers? Get with it!
> This is the city manager game all
> over this country.
Personally, I'm not especially vexed by Copeland's severance package, per se; the fact that he's on the city payroll at all is the issue. :)
Who was worked up about severance? Well, it was you -- but talking about Fursman rather than Copeland. You wrote (previous thread, 1:19 AM comment):
> The $65,000 is a severence package
> that the Cardinal council approved
> and put upon future councils. Note
> that the Cardinal council had the
> option of 0 months of severance or
> the maximum of 6 months severance.
> What did the Cardinal council
> choose? The maximum of 6 months,
> the maximum allowed by state law.
> Now was that wise? Why did
> Maplewood have to give away the
> farm?
So in response to your earlier complaints about Fursman, I now refer you to your own more recent words about Copeland's severance deal.
I guess I'm just a little puzzled that what you declared outrageous when applied to Fursman ("giving away the farm"), is now just perfectly normal and acceptable business as usual when it's about Copeland.
This is, of course, what we've come to expect. Behavior and decisions that were objects of great criticism when they involved the previous managers and councils (severance packages, tax and spending increases, etc.) are A-OK when they involve the current council majority and city manager.
At 11:52 AM,
Anonymous said…
Whew! I thought we lost the troll there. The amusing posts have tailed off the past couple of weeks. Glad to see that all is OK with our friend.
Now back to business...
"Their new manager (according to the newspaper) gets 6 months severance after NO probationary period."
Perhaps the Roseville council didn't feel they needed any probationary period since they actually went thru a full hiring process where they set some requirements for the job and then did a real search. Let's see...Our (full!) council set some requirments. Then the majority decided that those requirments didn't matter. Our (full!) council had decided to conduct a reasonable search. Then the majority decided we didn't need a search. Maybe, like Frostbrand has said, our council just wanted to make sure that they were able to keep him leashed.
"they put much more stringent standards than most other cities do."
Please explain to us dear troll what happened to the job qualifications that ALL of the council members agreed to before changing Mr. Billiant's title from interim to (sort of) permanent. Maybe the concept of "stringent standards" expires at 12:01 AM...
"This is the city manager game all over this country. As long as voters want city manager form of government, then this is what you will get."
One item that seems to come up with you from time-to-time is the idea that we are just like everyone else. Why? Do we ALWAYS have to be just like everyone else? Can't we as a city do things differently? Can't we do things (GASP!) better?
Thanks for returning dear troll.
At 1:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
Sorry, But I'm posting this under a section not really related to my topic.
I read this and nearly dropped over and posted it on the first section here.
JELLY wrote this and its on "maplewood voices".
Think about Mr Longrie,(Berglund), when reading it.
"Update 1/8 11:15 AM]
[Via a Data Practices request, here is the 1/7 10:20 PM email reply from Councilperson Hjelle, which was also sent to all other council members, to Ms. Flister's request that the council see that a record is made for all residents of the Mayor's Forum and SouthLeg meetings.]
I am glad that you have finally asked for help. I have had numerous people make comments to me that you and your husband make them feel uneasy. You walk around tape recording meetings, he sits in the back of council meetings taking notes and talking to himself. It does make normal people question your behavior.
My only advice is that maybe you should find someone else to attend the forums for a awhile? It sounds like the people that attend the forums are not comfortable with you. Usually Anne Fosburgh attends (you know, one of those extremist Historical Society types) or Jerry Markie (another free-speech opponent who has his own public access cable TV show) and they are not usually hostile. They were never hostile during Mayor Cardinals forum's and have not been hostile at Mayor Longrie's either. The only difference has been your recent attendance and your strange behavior of tape recording people. So instead of blaming others, maybe you should step back and look at yourself before you attack others.
Have a safe day!
Your councilmember, Erik Hjelle"
Didn't Berglund have a camera surgically attached to his nose during the OLD times of harrassing maplewood employees? And following them everywhere.But just dont do it to his Wife? I need say no more.
At 2:40 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Wow. Hjelle. What a jerk.
It is ironic that the mayor's husband sued the city over his first amendment right to record city business, but now his wife is shutting down recordings of her meetings.
Another case of what's very bad when done by previous council, becomes perfectly acceptable when done by this council.
At 4:42 PM,
Anonymous said…
I've seen another email from Hjelle responding to a complaint from a citizen. He basically told the citizen that if he didn't like the way things were in Maplewood he (Hjelle) could recommend a realtor to sell his house for $0 commission. Hjelle is a huge jerk!
At 8:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
The e-mails mentioned in the previous posts should be made public,(ie. media, etc).
Any regular city employee who responded to a taxpayer in that fashion would, at least, be disciplined, if not fired.
Message for Mr Hjelle, (pass it on Troll, if you would),: GROW UP.
At 8:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dear troll...
Would you like to defend mr. hjelle? I am interested to see how you turn this sow's ear into a purse...
At 9:26 AM,
Anonymous said…
Does anybody know if Berglund has paid his court ordered monies? I'm not exactly sure of the amount but he did lose when he sued and was stuck paying attorneys fees. He keeps whining about not having any money and tried to have the fees waived under informa pauperis.
I guess when you live at home and don't have to pay bills like the rest of us, you can claim that you are impoverished.
Just a titilating (sp?) piece of information I discovered. Does anyone know if the City went forward with the dirty house ordinance violation against Longrie? This would have happened several months ago, just wanted to know the status.
As far as Hjelle is concerned, did he go to a Shock and Awe Seminar to sharpen his fabulous people skills?
At 9:13 AM,
Anonymous said…
Need to make a correction to my previous posting. I should stated that Berglund won and lost when he sued the City. He was stuck paying attorney's fee as an end result.
At 3:33 AM,
Anonymous said…
The citizens of our city have chosen to keep things just the way they are. How many signatures does it take to change the form of government here? 10% of the last city election? What is that? 400 signatures? Apparently people like our system just fine the way it is I guess or everyone is just really lazy.
Concerning the Flister email, at least Hjelle is honest. I hate politicians who tell us what we want to hear rather than the truth.
It doesn't surprise me to see someone sue to gain access to a publiic city meeting where a quorum of elected officials were in attendance, and for someone to kick out a video camera operator out of a meeting where only one elected official was in attendance at.
Hjelle also has it right in that if you don't like the way things are going, maybe moving is the best option for some people.
Yes an employee making a statement like that should be fired, because they do not work for the people. They work for the elected officials. On the other hand, the elected official works for the people and is hired or fired by the people. When Hjelle is up for reelection, this person can vote to hire or fire Hjelle. But what sticks in the back of my mind is the belief that this person never voted for Hjelle in the first place, so therefore Hjelle probably figures who cares. You can't lose a vote you never had.
On the Berglund court costs, did Berglund have to pay his own fees or both his and the city's? I never got the full answer on that issue. It sounds like he had to pay his own fees only? If this is the case, then this is hardly losing.
At 10:59 AM,
Frostbrand said…
> But what sticks in the back of my
> mind is the belief that this person
> never voted for Hjelle in the first
> place, so therefore Hjelle probably
> figures who cares. You can't lose a
> vote you never had.
I think you're right, and this speaks volumes about Hjelle's attitude toward serving as an elected official. (Someone else might think that by serving well you can *gain* a vote you didn't have before.)
Mind you, more and more people I've met have said they did vote for Hjelle & Co., and really regret it now, and they're interested in actively working to throw the three out by whatever means possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home