They Said Nothing at the Vote. Four Months Later, They Rented a Fire Hall to Demand His Firing
Both admit the concerns predate the vote. One says she didn’t want the fight then; the other calls it a conclusion of five years. Neither said a word when it counted.
What do you do as a manager when two council members organize a community meeting to call for your firing? The same two council members who voted on your contract extension and raise less than 4 months ago. One of them, Lisa Vanni, voted yes. And the other, Andrew Monastra, voted no, but made clear that his vote was not “because he does not think Keller is doing a good job, but because he is opposed to any measure that increases spending without identifying how it will be paid for other than by raising taxes”. Putting aside his odd explanation, odd given he could’ve offered those suggestions, since he is after all an elected official with presumed knowledge of the budget, he still made clear the manager was doing a good job.
Barely four months later, Vanni and Monastra orchestrated a public meeting that resulted in a call to end the borough manager’s “ridiculous contract”. The concept of a public meeting is worthy, but this public meeting wasn’t called with good intentions to hear concerns from residents. This meeting, according to one of its organizers, Councilman Andrew Monastra, was called to express opposition to “what happens here and this pathetic excuse for council leaders who call this a forum”, referring to the council meeting where he announced the forum.
To leave no doubt about the meeting’s real purpose, he added, about his colleagues and Borough staff, “most of these people, who are barely qualified to open a lemonade stand, let alone a $50 million corporation that is responsible for fire, police, roads, water, sewer and other services; a panel of leaders . . . and borough employees who make disgusted faces while the shareholder speaks”.
This is what Justin Keller, Pottstown’s Borough Manager since December 2018, is dealing with.
One person who voted for the contract barely four months ago is calling it ridiculous. The other who voted against it for policy reasons, but made clear it wasn’t a reflection on the manager’s job performance, now wants it ended.
The reasons? Well, according to Monastra, as reported by the local paper, “in his last five years in office, he has concluded that the management structure in borough hall destroys initiative. It hinders innovation and has created a bunker mentality of self-preservation. And that’s not good for any business, and believe me, government is a business.”
First, a few things. No, don’t believe him, government is not a business. Businesses are in the business of providing value for shareholders. Government provides service. They couldn’t be more different. Second, this profound view apparently wasn’t expressed less than four months ago when he had the opportunity to say so when voting on the contract.
Lastly, I have no personal knowledge of this, but having been around long enough, when I hear complaints about management structure and facilitating “a new concept”, it screams form-of-government complaints. How much of this means that these elected officials are using this as a way to explore changing from the council-manager form to a form that gives more executive powers to a Mayor, is unknown. Most of these arguments start with complaints about other areas before announcing a grand solution.
Vanni, for her part, according to The Mercury, explained her sudden change of heart like this: “I didn’t want the fight at that time because my vote didn’t count. I’m willing to fight for that now because people are willing to come out and support that fight.” So, to understand her point of view, she supposedly had a view in her head, voted against it because no one complained, but when people complained, she realized it was o.k. to finally speak out. I am not in the position of making value judgments on the policies of elected officials. But when someone admits that they are only speaking out a certain way on a topic because the public is now speaking, it makes you question their authenticity.
As to her purported specific reasons now, they seem to center on residency. She is quoted as saying: “He used to be my neighbor, and he walked to work at borough hall, and he would see things that bothered him and they would be taken care of . . . He doesn’t live down the street from the shootings and the stabbings. You live here, you pay taxes here, the borough manager should too.”
Also worth noting is former Council President Dan Weand’s attendance at the meeting. The article doesn’t say he participated in organizing the meeting, but he thanked everyone for coming out and cited his own concerns about what was going on in the community. While it was not reported that he said anything about the manager, Weand was the subject of a quixotic petition four years prior put forth by another resident that complained that Weand, a councilmember at the time, applied for and was passed over for the Borough Manager role. The petition called for the firing of Keller and immediate hiring of Weand.
There were many policy concerns at the meeting, and many sounded valid. I won’t be writing on the overall goings-on of Pottstown. Nor am I going to be making a judgment on whether the Manager is doing a good job. That’s outside my scope. What I will comment on is the open derision of the manager by two council members who had the opportunity to express those concerns less than 4 months prior, and chose not to, until some community uproar occurred over a separate issue.
The Public Spectacle
I’ve seen communities that do their performance reviews of their City Managers in public. If you read my article on communities hiring managers through a public interview process, it may come as no surprise that I wouldn’t be a fan of public personnel evaluations. I believe that despite being public sector leaders, personnel evaluations should be kept in closed sessions between elected officials and the managers, to the extent laws allow. I don’t see how a manager and their council can have an honest conversation about weaknesses if every word is performed for an audience. The result is one of two outcomes: theater or silence. It never produces the frank conversation that can improve performance. If a manager is doing a good job, that can be publicly known with contract extensions and raises. If not, that is known by moving on from them.
What Vanni and Monastra did was take this to an indefensible level. There is no scenario where they can justify renting out a fire hall and calling for the firing of the Borough Manager. Even more indefensible is that this was only four months removed from a contract vote where both stayed silent when given the opportunity to express these concerns. I get they are politicians, but they are still dealing with an employee, and a modicum of decency would dictate that the way to handle this is to discuss your concerns with fellow council members. And if there’s agreement, begin the process of moving on from Keller. One can reasonably conclude they did so, and did not have anything close to a majority, and chose a community meeting as a way to embarrass the manager. My first adjectives for it were opportunistic and petulant. The more I think about it, the more I think it’s just something simpler: they’re just mean.
Residency
Vanni’s biggest concern raised was his residency. Keller apparently moved out of town. We should be long past the time where residency is a requirement for someone to be an effective municipal CAO. Those who raise the issue often point to arguments such as ‘skin in the game’ or not paying property taxes. I found her first point interesting where she stated that he would walk to Borough Hall, see things that bothered him, and they would be taken care of. I knew a manager who did exactly this and was highly regarded in his community for this and other reasons. He had a vested interest in the town because he lived there. That’s undeniable.
However, accepting that doesn’t make the inverse position true. Suggesting that a manager doesn’t have a vested interest because they don’t live in town doesn’t pass the logic test. As it relates to seeing things on his walk to work, you’re judging his performance on reactiveness. A good manager pays attention to their community regardless of where they live. If they are only responding to issues when they see them on their walk to work, or in the case of an out-of-town manager, during their drive in; that’s a work-related flaw that will occur regardless of where they live.
Another claim she makes is: “You live here, you pay taxes here, the borough manager should too.”
That, too, falls apart under any logical examination. First, it’s true that if taxes go up, they go up for a Borough Manager who owns property and lives in the community. It also affects the manager who rents, since a rise in taxes would presumably affect their rent. However, it is not the manager who sets the taxes. That is the Borough Council. The manager can only prepare a budget; it’s the council that votes.
Regardless of all that, if you want to believe the idea that a Borough Manager would care less about the community because they don’t live there, then you have to believe they don’t care about their profession or livelihood. The vested interest a manager has in the successful outcome of their community is their paycheck. I can’t work in a community, not care about what happens when I head home, ignore the impacts of my decisions on the people who live there, and expect any of it to remain hidden in my work — or expect to keep my job. It’s an utterly ridiculous idea to suggest someone whose livelihood depends on the success of the community will ignore it because they don’t live there.
I can’t say for sure why Vanni and Monastra want the Borough Manager gone, but the stated reason is nonsensical.
A Matter of Decency
I don’t expect to write about individual managers’ situations often. I’ve long stated that managers and administrators shouldn’t make judgments about the job performance of their peers from the outside looking in. That’s not what I’m doing here, and I don’t view my role as advocating for individual managers. I will, however, write about specific stories when what happens appears so out of bounds that it’s worth addressing, especially in a case where outside of this spectacle, there appears to be no other calls for the manager’s termination from the rest of the council. Had there been, I probably wouldn’t have touched the story until it’s resolved but then would still write one criticizing the orchestrated public spectacle.
As much as anyone, I understand what it’s like to work in difficult environments. In one community I was the sixth manager in 12 months. In another, I was fourth in 5 years. I’ve been fired and pushed out of jobs. I’ve talked to many elected officials in communities I served and ones I did not. I’ve always advised them that if they are unhappy with their managers for any reason, try and act with some decency. I tell them to remember that these are employees with families and professional reputations. While it might look good to the public to have a spectacle, it can often do damage to the professional reputation of your manager, when in fact, the real reasons are just personal or political.
When I see a spectacle orchestrated the way Vanni and Monastra did, it reminds me of the lack of decency with which some elected officials treat their managers. Whether it’s intentional or a decision to put politics and spectacles above all else, I don’t know, but the end result is the same. They are choosing politics over policy, and chaos over decency.
Editor’s Note: I intentionally did not seek comment from Justin Keller. The public record was more than sufficient to address the two issues here: the reporting, the officials’ own words, and the contract votes all speak to the spectacle and the residency question. Neither turns on his performance, which is not something I feel is appropriate for me to ask about or discuss. And asking a manager to respond to criticism of two of his bosses is a position I wasn’t willing to put him in. Additionally, I did not contact any elected officials for comment. As with Mr. Keller, the public record sufficed. Furthermore, doing so might run afoul of ICMA’s Code of Ethics.
