February 12, 2016

Fotovich denies mayor’s allegations

Larry Fotovich
It’s unfortunate that two candidates withdrew from the city administrator recruitment process, but Gardner doesn’t need a chief executive who will quit at the first sign of controversy.  Better to know that sooner than later.
Although the mayor characterized the quitters as “the top two candidates,” this is only one of many errors, omissions and lapses in logic that comprised his press release.
True, one of those candidates had unanimous support amongst council members, but not with Mayor Drovetta, and by the time he finally agreed to consider the council’s wishes and make the offer, he was curiously one day too late.
The mayor claimed that this candidate withdrew because of my letter to the Gardner News.  That is not true.
The Sept.6 minutes of this candidate’s own council meeting indicate that he was offered a $10,464 pay raise in exchange for withdrawing his name from consideration for the Gardner city administrator position.  It would appear from this action that he was highly regarded by his current mayor but only reluctantly so by ours.
Regardless of what the mayor claims, we all know that comfort with one’s current employer and a nice fat raise are a tough combination to beat—especially when the city one is considering has endured five years of conflict and divisiveness.
That candidate’s withdrawal letter came nine days before the mayor issued his press release—more than enough time for the mayor to do some basic fact-checking, if he really wanted to set the record straight.
The mayor claimed that there was a breach of confidentiality which compromised the recruitment process.  That is not true.
Before any interviews took place, our recruiter assured us that every candidate who was currently employed had notified their respective governing bodies of their intent.
I have confirmed with Council Member Chris Morrow that my recollection of this statement is correct, but I encourage anyone who wants additional documentation to contact any council member or the mayor and ask them to verify the origin of the e-mail we received on Aug.4 from one of the three finalists.
That finalist sent us a “thank you” note from his city’s e-mail address, which I doubt he would have risked doing, if his employer hadn’t already known of his intentions.
You might also wonder how the governing body of the candidate who received the raise knew about his candidacy, if he had not given them prior notice.  You will recall that my letter to the Gardner News never mentioned the names of any of the finalists.
On Aug.8, a council member revealed that they had contacted a couple of sources in another city where one of the semifinalists previously worked, and they used information from that background investigation as the basis for withdrawing their support for that candidate.
Mayor Drovetta did not seem surprised or concerned by this breach of confidentiality then, nor did he issue a press release to notify the residents of the injustice.  No surprise there; it was not his candidate who was thrown under the bus.
To date, neither the mayor nor our recruiter has supplied me with a copy of the withdrawal letter from the mayor’s ringer, although I have repeatedly requested that document.  In the mayor’s last reply, he asked me why I wanted it, and then he used the exemptions of the Kansas Open Records Act as a questionable basis for keeping it and other previously accessible documents from me.
I also learned, in speaking with the recruiter, that he had not conducted any background investigations on the three finalists.  This contradicts the information we received from our human resource manager and does not comply with the contract the mayor signed with the recruiter.
When you look at news media accounts of city administrator searches in other parts of the country, you’ll frequently see the names and biographies of the candidates.  There is no attempt to keep the public in the dark about the process or the candidates’ identities.
In many cases, there are public receptions at city hall where all residents can meet the finalists and provide input to their council members as to who they like and what concerns they might have about those they don’t.
Contrast that with our process, and you’ll see a clear effort to block that broad input.  Only the “secret six” community members hand-picked by the mayor were allowed to participate, while the other 19,000 served as spectators.
I’m not sure what the mayor hopes to gain by suspending the search until spring, but rest assured, his candidate—the one whose withdrawal letter has never been seen—will be back.


  1. It appears life is one big conspiracy to Mr. Fotovich.

  2. conspiracy theory says:

    Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.

  3. Wait a minute, Larry says:

    You can’t recork the genie bottle by pretending you didn’t pull the cork.

    Apparently you’re really big on rewriting history to cover your unfathomable mistakes. You’re trying to tell us that your leaking personal information to the world about our potential candidates was not responsible for his/her withdrawal, but how in the world would his/her own mayor know to offer more money if you hadn’t made public that Gardner was interested.

    And you can’t hide behind the lame excuse of “well, their cities already knew” or that “other cities talk about potential candidates”. Remember that it was a local web reporter in one of the cities who had scoped out the leaked information and started asking embarrassing questions of potential candidates? Maybe you don’t really understand the notion of why it’s wrong to root around in confidential information of prospective employees and to broadcast it to the world.

    After all, here you are AGAIN, publishing personal salary information about people! Good God, man, are TRYING to get us sued?

    You should have given up while you were behind on this. Everyone who’s seen you in politics knows that you love a good conspiracy. But continuing to put Gardner at risk because you think you see nefarious demons lurking in every corner is NOT the mark of the leader you were elected to be.

    You wanna keep grinding your grudges against Drovetta? Fine. It makes you look stupid, the more desperately you try to paint devil horns on him over the increasingly fanstastic accusations you keep throwing his way. But at least your fans wanted you in that role enough to make sure you got into office, so feel free.

    But please. From the citizens of Gardner who will have to pay for the lawsuits that could result from your repeated indiscretions of confidential personnel information: back off of trying to make yourself “right” in this instance. Go back to accusing Drovetta of being an Intermodal shill or something. At least we won’t get sued that way.

  4. Jdelphiki how I love you says:

    I love your convuled logic. Did you take a lot of drugs as a youngster?

  5. Jdelphiki how I love you says:

    Make that confused logic. See the effect all your words have on me?

  6. GardnerPride says:

    I’m curious why Mr. Fotovich may no mention of his Letter to the Editor being specifically mentioned as a reason for withdrawal by one of the candidate’s. I believe you can see the letter through an Open Records request.

    I agree with the person above that mentioned, where’s the smoke, there’s usually fire. I have no doubt that there were most definitely two ugly sides to this conflict, and I’m quite certain that half-truths are being used to save face.

    I really wish Larry would have let this one rest and waited for the interview process in the Spring. Just as the dust settles, he blows his hot wind to stir it back up.

    In my eyes, he has proven himself as one who is very adept at pointing the finger, but rather weak at pulling the thumb. This is also an area of improvement for the Mayor as well.

  7. For once I almost agree with you. I think this search was a mess from start to finish. Enough blame to go around.
    I would think if the Mayor has the withdrawal letter you speak of he’d make it public. I would. If it truly is an open record, the sender would have no expectation of privacy. Which also negates the argument that these job applicants could sue. First: For what? And second: even if one of them did sue, it would ruin any chance they ever have of finding employment in their chosen field in the future.
    I would also think if Mr. Fotovich has copies of minutes that shows the applicant accepted a raise from his city council, he would make that public. Again, public record and no expectation of privacy.
    What all this highlights is the lack of leadership this community has suffered for the last several years. The tail is wagging the dog.
    There was no reason for this search to be so controlled and so secretive. Elected officials and staff should be capable of conducting an employee search with limited input from community.As it is, we spent money we didn’t have to a consulting firm that had no true stake in the community and that failed to produce. And we’re in a bigger mess than when we started as we’ve effectively demoted the current interim administrator, prematurely announced a replacement, and not followed thru on that. What a mess. And we all suffer.

  8. Judith Rogers says:

    KCMO has been in the process of securing a new chief of police. The people knew who the finalists were, some locals and some from out-of-state and I believe an opportunity was given for the people to meet them. But, of course, as Drovetta, Repshire, Gilhaus and others have shown us time and time again, we work in the world of back room deals, secrecy, conniving, manipulating, stonewalling, shakedowns, corrupt, cronyism government and this world is now in our school district. I am not liking it and I appreciate when people speak out about it and try to put a stop to it in this status quo town. That takes some guts, much unlike the no-namer cowards I see posting here day after day. At least have the integrity to stand up and have your say in public but I doubt if that happens because the no-namers have had their way for much too long and many, many are suffering because of it and this lowlife behavior is going on across the land and now the people are starting to march in the streets. The messes continue to get bigger since honesty, character, integrity, ethics, etc. have been placed in the back seat by so many.

  9. Seems like Fotovich is very unprofessional and immature. He has a grudge against Drovetta and it probably runs both ways and I wouldn’t blame the mayor.

    Larry needs to take the emotion out of his job and do what makes sense not be against whatever Dave is for. We need a checks and balance but not pure obstruction.

  10. GardnerPride says:

    We desperately need a council that governs free of agendas while focusing on general interest of doing the right thing for the entire city. I’d like to think that Foto and the Mayor are capable of this, but I am growing tired of the waiting game.

  11. Lame excuse says:

    Who cares what happens in other job searches. If this search was supposed to be public and non-confidential, it would have been public and non-confidential all along. If Fotovich was supposed to be ratting out people looking for jobs, he’d be in HR, not on the council

  12. *lame excuse says:

    Please tell me the reason this job search would need to be confidential?

  13. Candidate search says:

    The whole search doesn’t necessarily have to be confidential, but the part where the city has talked to candidates with the expectation that the candidates’ information would be kept confidential sure as heck ought to be.

    Look at it this way: if the search company hadn’t published the names of the candidates, and the City (Fotovich notwithstanding) hadn’t published the names of the candidates, and the candidates themselves had not gone public with the fact that they were in the job hunt, then the the information probably ought to be seen as confidential, shouldn’t it?

    But all that is beside the point that Fotovich (or ANY council member) has no business publishing details of the search or the candidates, regardless of the motivations that drove him to do so.

    Looking at what other candidate searches do or even looking down the road at our own search, when the candidates have officially announced their intentions and they become open to public scrutiny is not the issue here. Looking at what Fotovich chose to do, overstepping rules and boundaries in order to try to make a point, IS the issue.

    Even if we don’t get sued, his actions have chased off or ruined negotiations with candidates, extended the candidate search, and will cost the City even more money to continue it. Despite everything else, shouldn’t all us who are upset at how much the City is spending ALSO be upset at a Council member whose actions specifically cost us more money?

  14. *lame excuse says:

    How did the actions of any council member cost more money? I don’t think the administration has explained why the Springstead bill was more than the council approved spending, altho it would be interesting to find out.

  15. Judith Rogers says:

    I would also like to know why the Springsted bill was paid when it was in excess of the contract stipulations. And why should the citizens not have an itemized bill on every expenditure? Every citizen needs to be looking at those city expenditues and if they don’t have lots of questions, then they are in on the game perhaps.

  16. Good question says:

    That is a perfectly good question that I want to know, too.

    But it’s beside the point of the cost incurred by basically having to start the search over again in the Spring. We could all rightly focus on the oddities Springsted bill…if only Fotovich hadn’t overstepped his bounds. As it is, we have Springsted AND the same thing again with the next search.

  17. *lame excuse says:

    I don’t think it’s beside the point. I want to know how a bill can be paid that was beyond what the council approved spending. Who made the decision to pay it? It’s as if the elected officials have no power. That’s a concern completely separate from the failed search or Fotovich’s and Drovetta’s emotional tirades.

  18. It’s an entirely separate concern that we NEED to get answers for. No argument there at all.

    But it doesn’t dismiss Fotovich’s actions. Drovetta’s either if it turns out he was misbehaving. We need answers, but instead, we get Council members acting like they’re HR directors. And both Council members AND the Mayor playing to the op-ed sections instead of solving things in the Council chambers.

  19. Judith Rogers says:

    You have had problems at that City Hall for years, however, there are people who want to ignore those problems or only see what they want to see and for various reasons. Keep digging for the PROXIMATE CAUSE of these problems and then perhaps all citizens at large would be better off. This recent search for a city manager, in my opinion, was a rigged process cloaked in secrecy and one where the Dictator wanted his way come hell or high water and didn’t care whether the people suffered adverse affects or not and hey, that type of leadership has been going on for some time now. And the process cost the citizens thousands of dollars in the meantime. It will be important to see how the next search is conducted and it is very important for citizens to be involved and educated on how their government is run on a day to day basis in the meantime. All better be pushing for livestreaming and videotaping of all city meetings and citizens better be attending those meetings in some form and getting informed and educated on the issues and informing your Council members how you feel about those issues before the big vote each week. And if you have further questions from the Mayor and the staff with respect to agenda items prior to the meeting, you might play hell getting the information and they won’t let you ask questions or make comments prior to the vote of each new business item as the County does so you might want to think about changing YOUR government process on that too. It is like we don’t want the people involved – we want a controlled meeting with as little citizen input as possible which I think is a bunch of garbage – this city government belongs to all entities and especially to the average citizen who seems to be about the only entity wanting and paying taxes. Communication that works both ways in our city government is one of the poorest areas of our government. Most of the time the decisions, projects, etc. are delivered to you on a silver platter along with the bill for the costs. That’s my opinion.

  20. Judith Rogers says:

    It would be my preference that on the next city manager search that all of the candidates know right up front they will be vetted, examined with a fine tooth comb and looked at by any and all means. If the heat is too much for them, then perhaps they should not apply. I will say again that I will always do my own research on any issue because I have seen too many rigged processes with koolaid propaganda to last me a lifetime. Those business owners know they better be making good choices up front when hiring an individual because if they don’t, it could cost them an arm and leg and other adverse long term affects. I want the same protection with respect to the hiring of government bureaucrats and I also see no need for secrecy to be involved in the process. But dear ole Drovetta has worked in the back rooms for so many years, he cannot even contemplate working in an open and transparent environment – that is my opinion. The people will get what they demand and if they don’t expect much, they won’t get much.

  21. Fine toothed comb says:

    I think as city managers, they already know they’re going to be examined with a fine toothed comb.

    The issue with Fotovich’s alleged actions doesn’t have anything to do with a normal vetting process. It has to do with, first, the timing at which he decided to spill the beans on the potential candidates’ interest in the Gardner position, and second, whether or not someone in his position as Council member had any business doing the kind of snooping he was doing on the candidates.

    The other abmormalities of this whole mess ALSO need to be examined, but we’ll be setting ourselves up for problems if we simply sweep Fotovich’s actions under the rug as if he’d done nothing wrong in it all.

  22. Judith Rogers says:

    Fine toothed comb and all citizens need to be aware and remember Mr. Fotovich’s following statement from the above article – seems like many are overlooking this truth and other truths – again some only see what they want to see.


    “On Aug.8, a council member revealed that they had contacted a couple of sources in another city where one of the semifinalists previously worked, and they used information from that background investigation as the basis for withdrawing their support for that candidate.
    Mayor Drovetta did not seem surprised or concerned by this breach of confidentiality then, nor did he issue a press release to notify the residents of the injustice. No surprise there; it was not his candidate who was thrown under the bus.”

  23. You have a good point says:

    Where is the outrage toward the council member who took it upon his or herself to check references and then made a decision according to what he or she heard?

  24. Judith Rogers says:

    I would say you had many faux representatives involved in this rigged process.

  25. "They did it too?" says:

    Not sure I agree with the “well, they did it too” justification you’re making.

    The Aug. 8th instance cited by Fotovich and quoted by J.R. isn’t even a very good example to use to whitewash Fotovich’s actions as somehow being okay. I would be inclined to say that the council member who personally checked on sources ALSO overstepped the boundaries of what they should be doing. That’s something that the recruiter or HR ought to do.

    But at least, that council member didn’t publish details about the candidates online. Didn’t jump over to the newspapers to try to…whatever it was that Fotovich was trying to do in his first letter.

    That doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in the defense Fotovich seems to be making here, in his second letter.

  26. I don't get it says:

    Why all the uproar over city council members who checked out potential employees for a high paying job? Isn’t that what they’re elected to do? Should they just close their eyes and pick a name out of the hat? If so, why have them?

  27. Judith Rogers says:

    Mr. Drovetta’s accusations don’t hold up – as usual you only get part of the picture from him – the picture he wants to paint and only what he wants you to see. Wake up and smell the stench – it has been around for quite some time.

  28. @"They did it too" says:

    We get it. You strongly dislike, I would even venture to say hate, Mr. Fotovich. Every post from you always ends the same way, with you taking the long way around to discredit his every move. Nobody else’s actions, no matter how similar, are ever as bad as his in your book. So now that we’ve established that, why do you keep coming on here day after day with the same anti-Fotovich rhetoric? I think you’ve clearly already made your argument. What is your motivation to keep repeating it? What are you hoping to get out of this? Is it some sick need to vent your hate against this man or is it something more tangible? While I’m awaiting your answer, I’ll say a prayer for you that you are eventually able to put some of your hatred for him aside. It can’t be healthy.

  29. Judith Rogers says:

    Your reading skills must be minimal……I have not been bashing Fotovich but I have been bashing Drovetta and some others because they deserves it in my opinion due to their actions, inaction, words and voting record and for various other reasons Fotovich is creating no problems for you but, I believe, trying to protect the citizens from more of the same ole thing that is eating your lunch and more. Hate takes up energy which is not beneficial to me.

  30. @@They did it says:

    My reading skills are fine. But the selective reading skills of the rest of you seems to be better still. “@They”, I don’t hear you complaining about the repetitive Drovetta-bashing that Judith keeps throwing up, post after post after post.

    Since you asked, I keep bringing up Fotovich because he, along with several of his apparent fans out here, keep trying to ignore what he did, bringing up old conspiracy theories and grudges against everybody BUT Fotovich. For the record, it WAS Fotovich who took the city’s private business public. He seems to think he’s on the editorial board at Gardner News instead of on the City Council of Gardner. But putting that little jibe aside, why couldn’t his letter to the editor explain the concerns about the selection process, without spilling private details to the public?

    That represents HORRIBLE judgement on his part and I find it wonderfully hypocritical that the self-same people who are all the time screaming about how bad our elected officials are here in Gardner, but let one of their own make a mistake, and they’re happy to bend time and space and make up all kinds of bizarre excuses so they can pretend that it didn’t happen.

    Put it this way: if Drovetta had done something like this, you’d all be howling for his head. People were trying to get him recalled for cussing at a Council meeting. But let Fotovich screw up and instead of answering why you think his actions are okay, you’re complaining that I’m being “hateful”? Really? And what would you call Judith’s non-stop posts about…well…everything? Love and prayers?

    My concern has nothing to do with Fotovich personally. Unlike some people out here, I can object to someone’s actions without having to attack them personally. And ALSO unlike some people out here, I want to make sure that Drovetta and the rest of the Council don’t get a free ride on this whole mess. I don’t have to hate anyone to want our Mayor and Council to keep its business in the Council chambers and not on the op-ed forums…or to want the whole lot of them to behave with some integrity.

  31. But you're right says:

    No need to keep hammering the same point. Time to move on. And forward.

  32. Judith Rogers says:

    Jdelphiki, Dan that is, at his pulpit again………….and him being the innocent one just like Drovetta…….ya gotta just love it unless your city government was getting worse by the day and the citizens suffering because of it……..

  33. City business is public business. The city is not an entity in and of itself. It’s not a private enterprise. It’s government, funded by taxpayers, Did anyone of you take a Civics course? I need to quit reading this drivel. Everyone pointing fingers and gossiping and no one taking responsibility. It’s always someone elses fault. Look in the mirror. Quit whining and vote.

  34. Judith Rogers says:

    How about getting informed and educated before you vote. Your job includes more than just voting. Many more responsibilities are required.

  35. Judith Rogers says:

    But wait, you have two closed local governments – how are you supposed to be informed when the information highway is closed down by worthless politicians and bureaucrats????? Let me hear it again………that is a closed process aka rigged process…………..you will have to pay to get that information…….campaign finance donors are listed as “ANONYMOUS”………developers claim farm use on their properties even though there has never been a crop or a grazing animal on the properties and the taxpayers lose millions in tax revenue while the thieves thrive………….videotape city meetings – we don’t have the money for that……….you are much better off having to rent-a-fireman than having your own fire department – you need to help cover the costs of the intermodal fire protection costs……….open storage lots that create very little tax revenue but create more trucks in your city plus other risk exposures are needed to keep the cronies taken care of – why should the people be protected???………….on and on we go……..yes, much more is needed than just voting – recognize what is happening with your faux government that is not governing for the average citizen.

  36. Seniors right says:

    Your all on your pulpits and none of you are making sense

  37. Judith Rogers says:

    It would make sense to you if you were informed…………what’s with the “your all”……….

  38. Seniors right says:

    Proves my point. Gotta be crazy to understand crazy

  39. Judith Rogers says:

    Senior, crazy is not involved………….being informed, educated and having some moral values is what it takes to understand…………

  40. Judith Rogers says:


    This article will tell you why it is so important to vett new hires so carefully and I don’t think the consultants like Springsted, who in my opinon are more agents for the candidates than for the people of a community, earn their dollars. Wonder what firm the County used to hire Vinci in 2006. Rigged processes, regardless of the issue, are never good for the citizens at large just like “done deals” aren’t either.


    Former official accused in homeland security funds case
    The Kansas City Star
    By JOE LAMBE The Kansas City Star
    Updated: 2011-10-11T06:10:05Z

    Leon Vinci, 61, is charged with two counts of making false information in December 2006 and March 2007.

    Two of his former employees also are charged.

    Johnson County prosecutors charged in July that Vinci made affidavits of expenditures that he knew contained false information.

    The matter involved whether the county improperly spent federal homeland security grant money for other things, defense lawyers said Monday.

    Vinci’s attorney, Melanie Haynes, said her client is not charged with personally getting any money from the federal grant and declined to comment further.

    Paul Morrison, the attorney for former employee Jose L. Martinez, 55, of Olathe, said all the criminal charges appear to be a stretch in a case in which no one but the county profited.

    “If this is a violation — and that is a big if — it’s technical in nature,” Morrison said.

    The case involves whether county officials used the grant money for things unrelated to earmarked purposes, like building space to be used to combat bioterrorism, he said.

    Morrison said that sheriff deputies who traveled to Colorado to interview Vinci spent far more taxpayer money on the matter than it was worth.

    A spokesman for the sheriff’s office declined to comment. Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe also declined to comment.

    Martinez and former employee Rita M. Bennett, 53, of Olathe, are charged with two counts each of making false information and computer crime.

    “We are fully cooperating with the district attorney’s office and all legal authorities,” said Bennett’s attorney, Larry Hoffman.

    All three defendants have Johnson County court hearings scheduled for Oct. 26 and 28.

    Vinci was director of the health department from 2006 to November 2008. He left shortly before release of a critical audit.

    For at least 15 years, Auditor Bill Miller reported then, the department was a rudderless ship with little direction at the helm.

    Health officials led divisions by their own rules, didn’t know how to manage finances and grant money, and were inconsistent in collecting money, he reported.

    County officials did not say then why Vinci left and declined to comment Monday.

    Vinci directed the San Juan Basin Health Department in Colorado from August 2010 to March.

    Ann Bruzzese, that health department’s legal counsel, told the Durango Herald that Vinci’s exit was by joint agreement.

    Knowing of the Johnson County investigation, she asked that special attention be paid in a 2010 audit to his activities, she said, but found no wrongdoing.

  41. Jared Taylor says:

    I have in my posession the Council Minutes (email me if you want them) from the September 6th Louisburg council meeting and it substantiates what Larry Fotovich says above. I have posted a portion of these minutes. This was indeed 9 days before Mr. Fotovich wrote his Letter to the Editor and clearly Mr. Cantrell advised the City either the same day or day after, well before so that Mayor Dave Drovetta could have acurately stated the facts of the goings on.

    I find it interesting as well from the statements from Mr. Cantrell that it appears he had no expectation of privacy in the search. This appears to me to be a case of a mis-managed search. Mr. Drovetta found an easy scapegoat in Larry Fotovich and Mr. Fotovich plays his part well in being the punching bag.

    City Council 9-6-2011
    “City Administrator Contract: Mayor Shreckengaust asked the Council to consider increasing Administrator Cantrell’s salary to $87,725 per year. If approved, Cantrell would withdraw as a finalist from the City of Gardner’s administrator recruitment process. Mayor Shreckengaust explained that this is the same salary that was paid to our previous administrator four years ago. Councilmember Donovan and Town agreed that Jeff was a huge asset to the community and that it would be difficult for the City of Louisburg to find a more competent Administrator than Cantrell. From the audience, Chamber Executive Director, Marcia Cook explained that it is a great pleasure working with Jeff and that he is an asset to this community. Councilmember Steve Town moved, seconded by Councilmember Donovan and carried 3-0 to approve the revised employment contract with Cantrell that provides for a new salary in the amount of $87,725. Councilmember Karns abstained from the vote. Cantrell thanked the Mayor and Council and was appreciative of their support. Cantrell stated that he would withdraw his application from the City of Gardner the same evening.”

  42. GardnerPride says:

    Interesting information Jared, but you need a quick fact check. Councilman Fotovich’s scathing Letter to the Editor was published on August 31st, one week prior to this council meeting. One might be inclined to believe that Mr. Cantrell had already decided to remove himself from the selection process, yet used the opportunity to earn a pay increase in his current position.

    I too believe that fault lies on the shoulders of The Mayor, The Council, Springsteed, etc, but please don’t dismiss the actions of Mr. Fotovich as having less of an impact than they truly did. In my opinion, without his letter the City of Gardner would be welcoming a very competent City Administrator at this very moment. That is only one man’s opinion of course.

  43. Jared Taylor says:

    My intent isn’t to absolve anyone from responsibility, my intent is to not allow Mayor Drovetta to falsely frame the argument (or Fotovich for that matter).

  44. GardnerPride says:

    I also think it’s worth noting that his increased pay in Louisburg is less than the salary that was going to be offered by the City of Gardner.

  45. Jared Taylor says:

    It’s important when reading his letter that he cited two reasons, 1.) The lenght of the process ; 2.) Fotovich’s letter to the editor.

    One lays at the feet of the Mayor, the other of Larry F.

  46. Senior too says:

    Why did it take too long? Who put in the delays?

  47. Mr. Mayor. The next time you smile at me across the aisle, I suggest you consider confession. It seems to me the truth has been bent. Mr. Fotovich, look within your heart. I hope your letters were done with the best intentions and that there was not another way to handle this situation. Anger can be an ugly thing. When adults are acting like petulant school children we all suffer. I have yet to see an administrator hired, including the one Mr. Drovetta appointed in his letter. What happened to him? Doesn’t the council have to approve? Did he decline? That letter was written a month ago. Who is in charge of this town. No one.

  48. GardnerPride says:

    To Senior: The hiring process has been postponed until the Spring. After 2 of the 3 candidates removed themself, the Mayor decided it best to restart the process. Hopefully the process will be more effective on the second try.

  49. But he said he was appointing a man to the position from Edgerton. I am sure I read that right. Is he one who removed himself?

  50. GardnerPride says:

    Mike Press is filling in as Interim City Administrator until the search begins next Spring.

Comments do not necessarily reflect those of The Gardner News, or staff. By posting, commentators assume all liability. Please contact webmaster to report comments that infringe on copyrights, or are of a profane or libelous nature. Webmaster reserves the right to edit or remove content deemed offensive.


Speak Your Mind