Agenda
 

 

Home

MainFunding 101
Conclusion Q&A
Public Record Law




 

 

 

First and foremost, it was unnecessary to divulge my personal employment information or status.  My statement to Mayor & Council on August 25, 2008 began with  "I am here before you today as a CITIZEN of Goodyear, not an employee."  I am still an employee of the city.  Mr. Fischbach directly contradicts himself in his statement as follows:  "When I was hired, I made clear my view  that employees were an organization's most valuable asset. I meant that then and I mean that now...."   Then why did Mr. Fischbach fail to get back to me as he said he would, when I read aloud these issues to him April 28, 2008? "Moreover, management does not intend to seek Ms. Greener's approval for every employment action taken or to disclose to her actions taken in connection with the employment of other employees."  But it's okay to disclose my employment actions as you see fit or when it would cast a prejudice on me?  Additionally, I met with Mr. Fischbach as an employee of the city, taking him up on his open door policy with regards to his e-mail to all employees and his hotline.  Confidential he said.  Offsite.  But apparently not for this employee.  His quotes from our meeting were taken out of context.  I encouraged Mr. Fischbach to seek outside sources to investigate allegations, instead he went right to the source of the alleged problems.

I  would also like to remind you that the whistleblower law requires an employee to have a 'reasonable belief' of impropriety.  My questions weren't answered so I had a reasonable belief.  I looked at financial information and had reasonable belief.  I saw e-mails and had reasonable belief.  It did NOT cost the city $11,000 to restore the tapes as John Fischbach stated to the press.  This was the cost of the investigation last year that proved nothing more than the vendor (IBM) of Lotus Notes had told Mr. Cisneros to begin with.  Answers that were supplied under the city's maintenance agreement.  Mr. Fischbach has clarified this to another citizen of the city in an e-mail.  See the link below.

Retraction of Fischbach Cost Analysis of Restoring Tapes

1.Direction to Staff Concerning Communications with Ms. Greener:  Ms. Greener alleges that staff has been directed not to communicate directly with Ms. Greener but to direct her questions to the City Attorney. This is true. This action was taken for two reasons. First, Ms. Greener has repeatedly threatened legal action against the City involving her employment with the City, purported whistleblowers claims, and claims involving the City's responses to public records. Second, staff's experience has been that Ms. Greener is not receptive to receiving information that is contrary to her perceptions. Under the circumstances, the best way to protect the City was to channel communications through the City Attorney's office.

RESPONSE:  My question was NOT regarding *staff* communications.  My question was with regards to the MAYOR AND COUNCIL being instructed not to communicate with me.  The Mayor and Council have not responded or acknowledged my many, many e-mails.  Questions posed by both my sister and I are of a public interest and these individuals are suppose to represent us in city government.  I am also disappointed that NOT ONE QUESTION, except to inquire where I and my sister were, was asked by the Mayor and Council on September 8, 2008.  I have never threatened legal action against the city.  I have merely informed them that I am invoking my rights under A.R.S.   38-532.  If you don't, you have no protection under the law.  I have not retained an attorney at any time.  I informed them that I had been to the EEOC and explained that if charges were brought against the city, it would be the EEOC who would bring the charges, not me, that is their job.  Once filed with the EEOC, an individual cannot pursue other legal action until a 'right to sue' letter is issued by the EEOC, should they choose not to pursue the charges.  It is not that charges are not legitimate, but the EEOC has limited resources and only prosecutes a small number of cases compared to claims. They encourage mediation.  Mr. Fischbach gives NO EXAMPLE of my not being "receptive to receiving information that is contrary to her perceptions".  Unless he is referring to the incident at city hall where a city attorney denied me access to records and I calmly quoted statute.  Her response was "if you don't like it, get a lawyer and sue us".  A complaint was filed with Mr. Fischbach and dismissed as a two way incident by Mr. Massey which is absolutely false.  A follow up e-mail inquiring if it would be appropriate to use the tone and statement with any citizen has been ignored.  The statement in and of itself is unacceptable and clearly in violation of city policies/guidelines.  My sister received a response to the original e-mail, however I did not.  I did nothing to require the city staff "protection".

Mayor & Council Questions

Professionalism Complaint / Failure to Fulfill Records Requests

2.Removal of Back-up Tapes: Ms. Greener claimed that in June 2007, the former Interim IT Director, Jesse Cisneros, removed back-up tapes from the IT Department. This was partially true. In June 2007, certain back-up tapes were turned over to Lightstone Solutions, a computer forensics consulting company, in connection with an investigation into concerns that certain members of the ITS Department were inappropriately accessing the email accounts and calendars of other City staff. The investigation has been completed and the tapes are in the control of a forensic computer company and have recently been transferred to the control of the City Attorney and are being maintained in a secure, fireproof, environment. These tapes have never been outside the control of the City. They have always been either in a City person's hands or under the control of the City's contract employee. At all times in this process all citizen and employee personal information was only in possession of the City. It was never compromised.

RESPONSE:  I have not seen the tapes as of yet, however, the fact that they were removed is totally true.  A simple, professional statement such as "we are performing an investigation and need the tapes.  They will be returned at a later date" would have been sufficient.  But NO answer was given.  The events that led up to the tapes being removed:  A former employee, the IT administrative assistant, was given access to Mr. Cisneros' mailbox when he took position.  Lotus Notes requires that the individual who owns the mail box (Mr. Cisneros') give permissions to those that have access to the mail box (administrative assistant). The administrative assistant was not a Notes Administrator, the only other way she would be granted access.    Initially, we were directed to submit our weekly activity reports (WAR) to Mr. Cisneros.  That was then changed to the administrative assistant.  There was confusion on who should be receiving the reports because both individuals had been on vacation back to back.  One week they were supposed to go to Mr. Cisneros, the next week the administrative assistant.  When one employee did not forward their WAR report to the administrative assistant, she went into Mr. Cisneros' mail box in search of it.  As Mr. Cisneros used the return receipt feature of notes, he was notified when the administrative assistant inadvertently opened an apparently sensitive e-mail as the return receipt was sent again.  Mr. Cisneros made inquiries to IBM about logs and the ability to determine what had been read.  IBM responded that they did not log to the granularity he was looking for.  It was after he received this information from IBM that the tapes were removed and sent to Lighthouse, who gave him the same answer.  You cannot distinguish read/writes to a calendar from read/writes to an e-mail.  The city consequently spent $11,500 to get the same answer they had already received from IBM, the vendor of the software who would know it best.  Lightstone just happens to specialize in the construction industry, where Jesse came from.  It could be nothing less than paranoia that caused the tapes to be removed from the server room as Jesse already had the answer.  The city paid Lightstone 4 times between May 2007 and September 2007 with nothing since then.  If they held the tapes after September 2007, did they hold them for free or were they in Roric's office?  Roric Massey's office is NOT a secure environment.  We store tapes offsite for a reason - in case of fire or theft as well as a controlled environment.  Having them on-site totally defeats the purpose of contracting with Iron Mountain to store our daily backups.

Jesse's Guy

Questions to IBM Regarding Audit Trails in Lotus Notes

Lightstone Payments

3.Allegations Involving the Former Interim IT Director: Ms. Greener levied the following allegations against Mr. Cisneros, claiming that during his approximate two and one half month tenure as Interim IT Director Mr. Cisneros: (1) was selling positions in the department; (2) along with the finance department buried rebates from computer vendors; (3) worked on his private consulting business during working hours; (4) and, reduced his e-mail data base following a records request from the West Valley View for his e-mails. 

Although Ms. Greener claims to have "proof" of this wrongdoing, she has not provided me that "proof" even after repeated requests. She claimed that when the tapes are restored we would have the proof. Well the tapes are restored and we have found no proof what ever. She did provide me with copies of a couple of Jess Cisneros's e-mails but they proved nothing. 

Accordingly, I have had staff conduct an investigation of Ms. Greener's allegations. The investigation included, at substantial expense, the restoration of relevant e-mail accounts from the six back-up tapes that had been removed in June 2007 and a review of these e-mails by City legal staff. All of this was done at a substantial cost to the taxpayers of Goodyear. 

4.Selling Positions: I have checked with HR. Mr. Cisneros did not hire anyone during his approximate two and one half month tenure as Interim IT Director, so it would have been impossible for him to have "sold" a position. Moreover, legal staff located no e-mails to or from Jesse Cisneros supporting Ms. Greener's allegations that Mr. Cisneros was "selling" jobs.

RESPONSE:  The term 'selling' was probably not the best word to use.  A better word would have been soliciting or recruiting his buddies.  E-mails are in the link.  Jesse also brought one of his friends in, right after the administrative assistant was fired, who actually had access to our network and sensitive data.  His friend was introduced as a new employee, replacing the administrative assistant, and Jesse stated he was restructuring the position.  He was then informed by department management that you can't just bring friends in, there is a recruiting process that has to be followed.  His friend left that day and never returned.  John was given his proof.  It is in the link below.  I guess these are the "couple of Jesse Cisneros's e-mails" that proved nothing and warranted no further investigation.  As I said previously, these requests were a matter of public concern and needed to be addressed.  Since they were not addressed in a professional manner within the confines of city hall, I felt that the public forum was the best place.  Let's not forget, we spent $11,500 to get an answer from Lighthouse for something  that we already knew.

Soliciting IT Jobs to Friends

Lightstone Payments

5.Rebates: Ms. Greener claims that Mr. Cisneros and Finance buried rebates from computer vendors. There was an e-mail exchange between Mr. Cisneros and staff in the finance department in which Mr. Cisneros was questioning the existence of rebates from Gateway. Although he was told there were nominal rebates, he was also told by finance staff that they preferred to have lower priced merchandise rather than "rebates." Mr. Cisneros did just that, switching vendors to a state contract with HP under which he received more favorable terms resulting in a savings to the City of approximately $60,000 annually. If Ms. Greener has documentation to prove her allegations, she should provide the evidence, otherwise there is nothing further to investigate.

RESPONSE:I did not say that they buried rebates, I said "the prior interim IT director as well as the finance department were aware of and participated in buried rebates from computer vendors, against state laws."  Yes, Jesse worked with the buyer to get lower costs on computers AFTER he was told that going to Costco or Sams club was not acceptable because of the quality of the product and availability of equipment through state contracts as informed by other IT management.  The buyer was well aware for quite some time that the rebates were buried and against state law.  This was not directed at Jesse, but at the buyer in the finance department under Larry Lange.  Just the fact that this was happening and finance knew it was illegal it cannot be dismissed because we got better prices on PC's.  What other vendors are giving us those 'hush, hush' rebates?  Another matter of public concern.

Gateway Buried Rebates

6.Outside Consulting: Ms. Greener claims she has proof that Mr. Cisneros was engaged in outside consulting during his tenure as the Interim IT Director. The City's Administrative Policies and Guidelines do not prohibit such employment, rather, they allow for secondary employment provided certain conditions are met. Specifically, he is required to obtain the written permission of the City Manager or his Deputy City Manager, and he is not entitled to use City facilities or equipment absent authorization by the City Manager or Deputy City Manager. Mr. Cisneros obtained the written permission of the then City Manager to engage in secondary employment. Moreover, a review of Mr. Cisneros's e-mails reflect a minimal and not necessarily an inappropriate level of outside activity by Mr. Cisneros during work.
RESPONSE:  I do have proof and I supplied that proof to John Fischbach.  Several people have requested Jesse's personnel file, both last year and this year.  As far as I am aware, no special permission slip or secondary employment form was included in any of those records requests allowing Jesse to do his business on city time from city hall with city resources, as required by policy/guideline.  Below ;is a link to Jess's secondary employment form that was received through an individual who requested his personnel file last spring.  Apparently his church is who he was approved to have secondary employment for as a volunteer - NOT TO WORK ON HIS OWN CONSULTING FIRM FROM CITY HALL, ON CITY TIME, WITH CITY ASSETS.  I still ask, for someone taking on such a big task as overhauling and saving the IT department from certain despair, why, why, why would we allow something like that?  Especially if he was having 'performance problems' as quoted by Ms. Fascenelli.  IF there is another secondary employment form in Jesse's file, it was not for the time period these e-mails were sent because it would have or rather should have been included in the records request for his personnel file last year.  So, IF one magically appears, then again, it would appear that the city of goodyear is not fulfilling records request as required by state law.  And, at the time the e-mails were sent/received, Jesse did not report to Mr. Dalke, he reported to Mr. Coughenour who's department fell under the direction of Ms. Wilkinson who reported to Stephen Cleveland.  So, why would Mr. Dalke approve anything?  Did Stephen Cleveland approve it? Sounds like another records request is in order.   Dean works for Ms. Wilkinson who is a director.  Why wouldn't Ms. Wilkinson be the one approving something like this?

Consulting Business on City Time

Administrative Guideline - Secondary Employment.pdf

Jesse's Secondary Employment Form

7.Deletion of E-Mails: Ms. Greener also accuses Mr. Cisneros of deleting e-mails in response to a public records request from the West Valley View for his e-mails. According to Ms. Greener, Mr. Cisneros "reduced his e-mail database by 1/3 from 300 MB to 200 MB after a records request was received from the West Valley View." The Clerk's office maintains a log of all public records requests. According to the City Clerk's log, there was only one request for Jesse Cisnero's e-mails in 2007. That request was from Sara Bisker (now Drew) of the West Valley View for e-mails between Jesse Cisneros, and Beth Manness, the former IT Department Administrative Assistant between April 2, 2007 and May 24, 2007, the date Ms. Manness's employment with the City was terminated. Assuming the deletion of the e-mails occurred, the purported deletion of e-mails is relevant only if e-mails between Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Manness had been deleted.

More importantly, the "data dump" Ms. Greener is talking of predated the public records request. Mr. Cisneros did reduce his e-mail database from 358,656 KB to 212,260 kilobytes on May 27, 2007. Sara Bisker's public records request for e-mails between Jesse Cisneros and Beth Manness was received after that date. I have been presented with no evidence that the deletion of e-mails involved an attempt to circumvent a public records request rather than merely routine maintenance we all must perform on our computer system.  

RESPONSE:  I apologize.  I made a mistake. I take responsibility for my successes and my failures.  Sara did request the e-mails after Jesse cleaned up his mail box.  Someone had already requested his personnel file however.  He was thinking ahead.  Does the city normally inform an employee when their records are requested?  The IMPORTANT thing missing here is the next statement I made that was NOT answered.  "I WITNESSED the conversation regarding what backup tapes to use for the request as the prior interim IT Director wanted the current backup tapes used instead of the time period requested."  What was the purpose of that request if not to hide something?

Notify Jesse of Record Request.pdf

8.Allegations of Mobbing: Ms. Greener has repeatedly alleged that "mobbing" or bullying has occurred within the IT Department. In the Complaint she filed against the current IT Director, Ms. Greener links her claims of "mobbing" to the disciplinary action taken against her and the turnover in the department. As has been her pattern, Ms. Greener takes a fact, i.e. the resignation of certain employees, and then, without full facts, draws unwarranted conclusions. Ms. Greener is not in management and management does, to the extent permitted by law, what it can to protect the privacy of current and former employees. Ms. Greener does not know the facts surrounding the resignations of her former colleagues and management is not going to discuss this with Ms. Greener and will continue to protect the privacy of those involved.

RESPONSE:  I am living proof that the mobbing exists.  I was told to "walk lightly", I was bullied and yelled at, denied the presence of a non participating employee - my supervisor in our conversation that was suppose to last a few minutes but was scheduled for an hour, written up to include 1 year of probation without investigation and then, when Kay mentions Title VII, the city retracts the write up.  I did not bring up Title VII. I had absolutely no idea what it was and most definitely did not think my disability would fall under it.  If you care so much about the employees, then why did you approve of your staff adding "unlawful" to the harassment and complaint policies?  Harassment is harassment, whether legal or not.  By allowing this to happen in policy, you are condoning the very activity I am complaining about.  And to include the word reconnaissance in policy changes, you'd think we all worked for Lockheed Martin.  The employees who have 'resigned' from the IT department were forced to sign resignations or be fired all while being mobbed.  No one has left voluntarily for another job.  I believe, Mr. Fischbach, that you do not know the facts surrounding the resignations of my former colleagues.  If you go to the source of the problem, you will hear exactly what they want you to hear.  If you are that naive to believe that the employees of the city do not talk to one another, especially after they are terminated, then, well, I don't know.  IT employees have been the talk of the city since April 2007.  People made jokes about who would be next, should we start a pool - all at our expense.  You have lost some of the most talented people the city had.  Although our leaders may not have been strong, we are skilled and very capable individuals.

Appeal And Complaint Part 1

Appeal And Complaint Part 2

Appeal And Complaint Part 3

Summary of July 2008 Policy and Guideline Updates

9.Response to Public Records Requests: In other communications sent to the press, Ms. Greener has accused City staff of providing outdated reports or records in response to her records requests and of not timely responding to requests. Ms. Greener is under the impression, based on her interpretation of Arizona's public records law, that she is entitled to immediate access to records and that the City has to update, with the most current information, any records requested. According to our attorney, the law requires production to be made "promptly," but what constitutes "promptly" depends upon the nature of the request. For example, we recently had an extensive request from one of the newspapers that took a couple of weeks to process because of the need of our attorneys to redact the documents or to cull from the responses documents that were not subject to production. Similarly, and according to the City's attorneys, the law does not require the creation of a record in response to a public record request or the updating of an existing record. The City is required to produce the document that exists, in the form it exists, when requested. For instance, in early August, Ms. Greener's sister requested a copy of an annual report that is required to be filed with the Arizona Department of Revenue. The report was not required to be filed until mid- September and Ms. Miller was advised that the report did not exist and that she would need to request the report at a later date after the filing deadline. There was no obligation on the part of the City to prepare and file the report prior to the filing deadline in order to produce the information requested by Ms. Miller. Clearly Ms. Greener and her sister believe the law requires something different, but staff will continue to respond to public records requests pursuant to our attorney's interpretation of the statutory requirements, and we are prepared to defend ourselves against any claims filed by Ms. Greener or her sister that we have not complied with the requirements of Arizona's public records laws.

RESPONSE: Again, Mr. Fischbach did not address the statement I made.  The statement pertained to records being omitted and city management circumventing the open records laws.  See the link 'Circumventing Open Records Laws' below.  If Ms. Wilkinson isn't circumventing the open records laws by clearly stating that she is, then I don't know anything. How much 'Proof' do you need for this one?  If she's doing it and Mr. Fischbach is obviously aware of it since this e-mail involved him, how many other staff in the city are doing the same thing? The incomplete records include the Authorized Full Time Positions report, which is a live document HR uses for recruitment.  Positions that have been filled, offers that have been made, etc., are current up until the date it was sent, except for Jesse Cisneros.  His paperwork was signed and completed prior to August 4th and it appears he hasn't been offered a job yet.  Additionally, records that are available in electronic format are not being supplied in electronic format.  The CIP project expenditure report is a Cognos report that is saved electronically.  The city refuses to supply this in electronic format and demands $133.00 for the reports requested.  Why?  Because these reports will show what projects were budgeted, the payment activity, purchase order balances and the balance of the project funding vs expense through the date the report is run.  I believe this would be a real matter of public interest.  An example is attached.

Circumventing Open Records Laws

Authorized Full Time Positions

Electronic Reports Request

10.Failure to Provide Mary Greener with Information Regarding the Status of Back-up Tapes: During the council meeting on August 25th, Ms. Greener suggested that there had been some mishandling of the back-up tapes because if they had been handled appropriately her questions would have been answered long ago. When the tapes were removed in June 2007, for obvious reasons, management was not going to disclose that an investigation was underway. Following the completion of the investigation, Lightstone Solutions was instructed to retain possession should they be needed in the future. No further thought was given to the disposition of the tapes until Mary Greener's April 28th Complaint. My understanding is that Ms. Greener's April 28th Complaint was the first formal allegation concerning the back-up tapes. Brian Dalke had scheduled a meeting with Ms. Greener on May 1st to discuss the allegations contained in her submittal. However, on April 30 2008, Mary went out on leave and cancelled the meeting. Had Ms. Greener met with Brian, she would have been provided the information that I shared in my e-mail following Ms. Greener's comments during Monday night's meeting. I must point out, that Ms. Greener has challenged the account of the back-up tapes and who has had possession. I have checked this thoroughly and can attest to the City's version of the story.

RESPONSE: Like I said earlier, I have inquired to the highest level I could about the tapes.  I went to Stephen Cleveland.  I asked my superiors.  After Mr. Dalke's performance in our staff meeting of May 30, 2007, there was no way I was going to question him about the tapes and he was the highest level I could go to until Mr. Fischbach arrived in April 2008.  Sorry, but I don't believe that Mr. Dalke's intent was to tell me where the tapes were in the meeting he scheduled with me.  Brian did NOT schedule a meeting with me on May 1, 2008.  I did NOT go on leave April 30, 2008.  Mr. Dalke scheduled a meeting with me for May 16, 2008.  The subject of the meeting stated "HR Submission".  I responded to the e-mail invite, asking for more detail so that I could be prepared.  I had made many submissions to HR.  This meeting was scheduled in an HR conference room, with Ms. Lackey in attendance.  When I questioned Ms. Lackey on the subject of the meeting, she said she didn't know that she was just invited to take notes.  I was in a city sponsored class most of the week.  When Mr. Dalke did not answer my inquiry, I ran into his assistant in the lobby and asked her to check on it for me.  The next day I still had no response so I sent her an e-mail.  She responded that she had talked to Mr. Dalke and he said "he would handle it" that he had been in meetings and didn't have time.  I had been seeing my doctor regularly for months and had an appointment on Thursday afternoon.  At that time, May 15, 2008, he placed me on a leave of absence.  I entered the HR area with my manager to turn in my paperwork.  Ms. Rameriz was at the reception desk.  I told her we were there to see Ms. Ruddy.  She stated that Ms. Ruddy was in a meeting.  I asked to see Ms. Wilkinson.  Ms. Rameriz left the desk and returned shortly thereafter to inform us that "Kay doesn't know what the meeting with Brian was about".  I told Ms. Rameriz we were not there to inquire about the meeting, we were there to process my paperwork for a leave of absence.  She then told us that Ms. Adams would handle that, and so she started the paperwork.  When Ms. Ruddy became available she came to the reception area.  After some discussion about the appropriate forms to be completed, I told Ms. Ruddy that she could let Mr. Dalke know that I would not be at his meeting on Friday.  Why would Ms. Wilkinson send Ms. Rameriz out with a response like she did when I never asked about the meeting?  I did not cancel the meeting, I went on a leave of absence.  There is no reason why, if Mr. Dalke's intent was to inform me of the disposition of the tapes that he couldn't pick up the phone and call me, return answers to my inquiries or write me a letter or e-mail.  I'm sure he had plenty of opportunity between May 16th and August 25th to do that,

11.Future Dealings: At her request, I recently met with Ms. Greener. Our conversation was illuminating in that it further demonstrated Ms. Greener's willingness to attack anyone in the City, elected officials and staff included, without any evidentiary support or with only limited information. The following is a brief summary of the attacks she made during our meeting and what actions she believes need to be taken.

12.Allegations Against the Mayor: During our meeting she levied allegations of conflicts of interest of the Mayor and his wife claiming that the Mayor had an interest in the ballpark and that his wife is an investor in Goodyear Baseball LLC. As is typical, her claims are without benefit of any "proof." The ballpark, the training complexes, and the parking parcels are owned by the City of Goodyear. The remaining property in Ballpark Village/Wood Corporate Campus is owned by the Wood family through various entities they have established. The property ownership is a matter of public record had Ms. Greener bothered to check. Her allegation that the Mayor's wife is an investor in Goodyear Baseball LLC is also debunked by a review of public records available on line at the Arizona Corporation Commission's website. According to the Amended and Restated Articles of Organization of Goodyear Baseball LLC, there are only two members of Goodyear Baseball LLC: (1) Civica Development LLC and (2) JMI Sports LLC. Mrs. Cavanaugh is not a member of Goodyear Baseball LLC. Moreover, Erik Judson confirmed the ownership of Goodyear Baseball when staff was negotiating a new contract with Goodyear Baseball LLC.

13.Allegations Against Councilmember Cavalier: Similarly, Ms. Greener levied allegations of conflicts of interest of Councilmember Cavalier. When I pointed out that Councilmember Cavalier had not voted on anything to do with baseball since I had been there, she advised me that I needed "to go back further." Ms. Greener's misplaced allegations show a lack of understanding of the applicable conflict of interest laws and the basic fact that circumstances change. Once Councilmember Cavalier became an investor in one of the companies controlled by Jack Rose, he recused himself from all votes on matters involving all companies controlled by Jack Rose.

14.Ms. Greener's Interference With Other Department Matters: Ms. Greener went on to challenge personnel actions taken in other departments within the City, including the Police Department, Risk Management, and Finance. Without substantiation she alleged corruption in our Police Department and of our Chief of Police. She asked for clarification for the 30 employees she claims were fired. Thirty were not fired.

15.Ms. Greener's Wish List: During our meeting I asked her what she wanted to see happen. In summary of what Ms. Greener wants is for the following eight (8) individuals to be terminated: Deputy City Manager, Brian Dalke; Police Chief Mark Brown; HR Director, Kay Wilkinson; IT Director Kathy Fernandez; Finance Director, Larry Lange; City Attorney Roric Massey; Risk Manager, Dean Coughenour, and Jesse Cisneros, and for those employees who have previously left the City to be brought back so the City could "go back to things like they were before."

16.My Response: There is no "going back." The City cannot go back and restore the "pre Jesse Cisneros, pre Kathy Fernandez" management nor is it in the best interests of the City to do so. The IT Department has long been an underperforming department. As early as 2001, outside consultants hired to review the department identified deficiencies in the department. The exact quote from the 2001 report was "The current environment reflects a shortage of human resources and a shortage of specific technical skills, and both facilities exist in a complex relationship with each other." Past surveys reflected dissatisfaction with the IT Department. Although certain changes have been made over time, the fundamental problems with the IT Department were not being addressed by prior management. Changes had to be made for City Staff to fulfill its mission to the Citizens of Goodyear. Today, it is being fulfilled under the strong leadership of Kathy Fernandez.

RESPONSE: Wow, Mr. Fischbach writes just like Ms. Fernandez.  First, our meeting was to be confidential.  Thanks John.  Now I’m sure that he heard me but positive he didn’t listen to me.  I went to Mr. Fischbach believing he could make a difference in city management.   He has not been here to witness what has happened.  He went directly to the individuals implicated for answers instead of getting an unbiased outside professional opinion as I suggested or going to the employees that have the answers or the ones that have been mobbed.  Just because we aren't in management doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about.  I did not interfere with other departments matters.  Mr. Fischbach solicited from me names of people I believed were being mobbed “to make it easier" on him.  The number was “thirty some odd” of them.  You’re absolutely right, there weren’t that many fired, you have to count the ones that have ‘resigned’.  I NEVER gave Mr. Fischbach a wish list.  Those would be his words.  He asked me what I’d like to see come of this and I told him that I'd like it to be the way it was before this all started.  An 'All American City'.  He stated that it couldn’t go back to the way it was and I told him I think it would be impossible to come back as long as certain people were still in management.  Again he solicited names of the people who are in position that would need to go.  That is what he asked for and that was my opinion.  There was no demand for terminations. And to use a study from 2001 today is ‘going back’ John.  The people who worked in IT in 2001, I don’t think I know a handful of them.  Don’t try to compare today’s quality employees with a report that is 7 plus years old.  Since the day I started with the city I have described our network as a chiropractors display spine - that is our backbone.  We have hung hundreds of PC’s and servers on this spine that exists in the desert.  And it has rubber rot.  The city never planned for the infrastructure needed to grow the IT department with the city.  We were too busy overspending on other projects, building ballparks, or dog parks.  The department has never been funded in the CIP and no planning was done.  This is not the fault of the non-management employees.  It would be managements responsibility to plan for the future.  Look at the surveys that exist in our current help desk system and tell me they show dissatisfaction.  I know they don’t – I’ve looked at them - I implemented the system.  If you want to believe that Kathy Fernandez has strong leadership skills, then great, that means you condone the actions she took upon me and every other ‘resigned’ or fired employee of the IT department.