Irvine Faces Personnel Issue
Irvine Watchdog’s post “City Council Agenda Item 1.3 Public Employee Discipline Dismissal Release” has residents wondering to which “public employee” this refers. Please read the letter below and click HERE if you wish to include your name in support.
*****
Dear Irvine Councilmembers,
On the January 14, 2020 City Council agenda, item 1.3 “PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/ DISMISSAL/ RELEASE – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957” has residents asking to which “public employee” this item refers.
City personnel matters are subjects for closed session. Therefore, we must solely rely on our City Council on this decision. As good stewards of our city and our residents, we encourage and implore our City Councilmembers (Mayor Shea, Councilmembers Carroll, Fox, Khan, Kuo) to uphold the integrity and fiduciary duty to our city and do what is in the best interest of Irvine.
Councilmembers, we are behind you and support you.
Sincerely Irvine Residents,
Jeanne Baran
Scott Hansen
Judith Gass
Branda Lin
Susan Sayre
5 Comments
Susan Sayre
January 11, 2020 at 1:29 pmI am one of the Irvine Residents who is curious about which public employee this agenda item is referring to.
I wonder: since the City Council voted to give John Russo, Irvine’s City Manager (who is also the Great Park Director) the sole power to hire and fire city employees without City Council approval with the exception of hiring and firing himself, is it possible that this agenda item is referring to John Russo?
Scott Hansen
January 11, 2020 at 1:32 pmI don’t have personal knowledge of which employee this involves. But the City Manager has broad hiring/firing authority. The list of employees the Council would be considering is short. For example, my understanding is the City Attorney is on contract and is not a City employee. I could be wrong, but I would think odds are good it’s the City Manager.
Scott Hansen
January 12, 2020 at 9:54 amReaders are asking us to identify the employee. Sources tell us the employee is controversial City Manager John Russo. I can’t personally vouch for that. But here is some information about Mr. Russo. You can find more article about him with an internet search:
https://www.cityofirvine.org/city-managers-office/city-managers-biography
https://irvinewatchdog.org/2019/09/10/op-ed-city-manager-john-russos-24k-raise-request/
https://irvinewatchdog.org/?s=russo+lawsui
http://theliberaloc.com/2019/04/04/taking-the-early-train-to-riverside/
Branda Lin
January 12, 2020 at 1:55 pmAgain, at the 3/12/19 City Council meeting, “5.2 ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPOINT, REMOVE, PROMOTE, OR DEMOTE CITY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS” unanimously passed.
ACTION: Moved by Councilmember Fox, seconded by Councilmember Khan, and unanimously carried by those members present (Mayor Wagner absent).”
Which means that the only position that our City Council has direct hiring/firing power for is for the City Manager position. Additionally, our new City Manager has undergone much scrutiny in the past year for actions noted in the articles linked in the above comment. There is no question who this agenda item is in reference to.
https://irvine.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=1406
alexjjj44321
January 13, 2020 at 9:24 amPretty disappointed. I’m not sure why Irvine even hired this guy in the first place. Presumably they used a professional recruiting firm, and there were many different candidates who would have liked to come to Irvine. Instead they selected a guy with a ton of baggage who was disparaging his previous employer while trying to get hired……as if that was not a red flag already. At the same time, his professional city manager experience has been 9 years since 2011 vs. Sean’s 2005. What warranted the salary he was receiving ? (besides John believing in his own mind he deserves it). It’s a good thing if the city finally gets rid of him and his people he brought over.
I also question Irvine city council as well, and will be looking at other candidates who are not incumbents moving into the next election cycle.
Comments are closed.