By Tara Hizon

In reading the online comments to the recent “More Turmoil at City Hall” article, there appears to be some misconception about the need for severance packages and the process required for their approval. I’d like to respond to those questions regarding where severance packages come from and why “public servants” deserve such “bloated” compensation.

To clarify: “Public servants” i.e. “elected officials,” don’t get severance packages. Council members, for example, are paid less than $600 monthly for what is easily a full-time job (if you do it right). I promise we aren’t doing it for the money.

Severance packages are an industry standard and only apply to “At Will” employees as a safety net, because accepting a high level “At Will” position means that you can be fired at any time with no notice and no explanation. “For Cause” employees aren’t eligible because they have the relative security of not being able to be fired on a whim.

The staff at Human Resources researches the offered employment incentives of other cities with similar population, industry, demographics, circumstances, etc. and makes a recommendation to the council based on what the local industry standard appears to be. Recommended severance can be more or less depending on whether or not the job market is competitive or flooded, or (hypothetically) whether or not you’re trying to recruit a qualified attorney and convince them to quit their current job, pull their kids out of school, pack up their families and move to a new area when they know that their proposed destination has gone through two other attorneys in less than six months. It would not be unreasonable for the recruit to think their new position may be precarious and therefore try to negotiate an even better “security blanket”’ before taking the risk of having to repeat the whole process over again in a few months with no way to support their families during the transition.

The ramifications of such turmoil go well beyond the surface of a single department head or contract, because unfortunately, the more turnover there is at City Hall, the more those severance packages are likely to increase.

So I guess the short answer to the questions posed would be: The severance packages (researched and presented by Human Resources and approved by the City Council) are necessary in order to attract well-qualified department heads.

The good news is that administrative changes don’t have to come with such a high price tag. For example: Bill Hawkins’ contract was to expire at the end of September. Letting Mr. Hawkins know that his contract would not be renewed would have achieved the same administrative goal without leaving the city vulnerable and without costing taxpayers a single penny of severance. With a little planning ahead, those four months could have been spent recruiting, hiring and getting a new attorney up-to-speed — ensuring a smooth transition for the city. Win-win! Instead, we are paying Mr. Hawkins to do absolutely nothing for the next seven months. That severance was a discretionary and completely unnecessary taxpayer expense.

The fire chief’s position is another example of an administrative change that could have been done with minimal turmoil and expense if implemented a little differently. No one disputes the mayor’s prerogative to make these staffing changes, but simply waiting and allowing Chief Soptich to retire in August would have cost the city zero severance pay while still achieving the Mayor’s administrative goals.

Does the mayor have the authority to fire certain department heads? Of course he does.

Does it have to cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars? Absolutely not.

Tara Hizon is a member of the Oak Harbor City Council