Negotiating contract exit with Lahner saves money in long run, he says
By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
Depending on how you look at the situation, last week’s reduction of the buyout clause in City of Burlington Administrator Kevin Lahner’s contract is either costing the city $26,000 – or potentially saving the city about nine times that amount.
While three aldermen – and many citizens – have voiced their frustrations that Lahner will be required to pay back just $25,000 of the $51,000 required by his 2011 contract, Mayor Bob Miller and at least two other aldermen want residents to look at the big picture.
Miller stressed that while Lahner was not paying back the full amount, the city would save money in the long haul, as the result of the negotiated contract change.
“If the numbers here were reversed, if it was going to cost the taxpayers money to let Kevin go, I wouldn’t have agreed to it,” Miller said.
Alderman Tom Preusker, meanwhile, wrote an opinion piece defending his vote (see page 6). In short, Preusker said the compromise was the lesser of two evils.
“Some people might think this is a sweetheart deal, but I think it stinks and I made the most of a bad situation,” Preusker wrote.
The City Council agreed to change the contract in a 5-3 vote following an emergency session on Nov. 26 – the night before Thanksgiving. However, the dissenting aldermen and the public have gotten louder since.
Miller and several aldermen who walked the Christmas parade route Friday evening got unsolicited feedback from many residents.
Negotiated compromise
On Tuesday, Miller spoke about Lahner’s contract, outlining details that were not reported last week and that he believes are important to consider before judging the compromise.
Miller estimates that Lahner agreeing to forgo a raise in 2010 and pay his portion of his retirement contribution saved the city about $40,000.
Miller said, in both cases, Lahner brought his contract before the council and the contract was renegotiated.
This time, Miller said, the contract was reopened and negotiated again.
“That’s what this was, a negotiation,” Miller explained. “The contract’s been reopened and negotiated twice before this. It was a benefit to the city financially (then). This time here, again, the city will benefit financially.”
Miller said the city would save money by not paying a city administrator’s salary for the 90 days he expects it to take to find Lahner’s replacement – and save additional money because the new administrator will likely be paid between $100,000-$110,000 – not the $133,000 Lahner is earning.
Adding that up, Miller said the city could save up to about $200,000 over the next 21 months.
In a separate interview Lahner said he made both of the earlier contract changes because “it was the right thing to do.”
He said he views the negotiation for his release as another revision of the contract.
Three aldermen – Ruth Dawidziak, Bob Prailes and Jon Schultz – voted against the measure to reduce Lahner’s contracted payback amount.
Prailes said last week it was a matter of principle.
However, Miller said he wants the public to fully understand the savings the city can realize – and that wasting money to enforce a principle is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.
Contract panned
Other aldermen voting along with Preusker to change the contract were Tom Vos, Peter Hintz, Todd Bauman and Ed Johnson.
“Why did I vote for the compromise? I don’t believe in standing in anyone’s way if they want to improve themselves,” Johnson said. “I think the contract we signed we will not do again.
“It was bad for us and it was bad for him.”
Preusker agreed the contract was not written well, and penalized Lahner for the longer he remained in the city but didn’t finish the contract.
“The way the contract was written put the city in a no-win situation,” Preusker said. “The spirit of what they did was that they wanted to lock him up for a significant period of time.”
Preusker thought that a contract that would have penalized Lahner for the years he did not complete – vs. what he did complete – would have made more sense.
“The way the contract was written, the penalty increases every year he stays,” the alderman said.
Preusker also said Lahner could have handled the situation better, and the council was placed in an awkward situation.
“We had to choose from the lesser of two evils,” he said.
He also rejected the premise that the city is losing $51,000, saying Lahner would have chosen to stay rather than pay back the full amount.
“I don’t want a city administrator, or any leadership staff, that doesn’t want to work for the city,” Preusker added. “If he’s made it clear he doesn’t want to work here, I don’t want him to work here – especially not for another two years.
“I think it’d create a toxic environment.”
Attempts to reach Hintz and Dawidziak were unsuccessful Tuesday. However, Prailes had said that he was in full support of Lahner paying the full amount. Dawidziak also went on record supporting that position last week.
“I believe that Kevin and the mayor mishandled the situation he was in – well before (Kevin) went up to sign a contract,” Prailes said. “I believe they handled it unprofessionally and somewhat unethically.
Prailes also said the council made Lahner a “great deal” with the five-year, no-interest loan, and in the end, the city administrator’s behavior was disappointing.
“He didn’t hold himself up to the same standard he held everyone else up to,” Prailes said.
Meanwhile, City of Waukesha Mayor Shawn Reilly confirmed Monday that Lahner’s salary in Waukesha will be $155,000, and that Lahner has signed the contract.
Lahner reiterated Tuesday how much he’d enjoyed working with the staff in Burlington.
“I think we have an incredible group of people who have worked here,” Lahner said. “I think that the council has been incredible to work with, and I appreciate everything they’ve done for this community.”
-
-
-
-
-