Claremont city manager getting a $21,000 bonus (January 11, 2017)
CLAREMONT >> The city manager here is getting a $22,270 bonus.
The council is so pleased with City Manager Tony Ramos’ work, following a recent review, they are giving him a one-time $21,952 bonus. The total comes to $22,270, which includes a 1.45 percent Medicare cost.
That’s 10 percent of his annual salary.
Although the council unanimously voted Tuesday night in favor of the bonus, one member of the public took issue.
Resident Jim Belna urged the council to reconsider, adding it was not meant as criticism of Ramos.
He’s an extremely hard worker and has had to deal with extraordinary challenges this year, Belna told the council.
Instead, Belma said he was directing his comments — which he deemed as advice — to the council.
In the real world, when an organization loses millions of dollars, the people who are responsible for it usually get fired. Even they worked hard and tried their best, he said.
If they somehow managed to keep their jobs it would be unthinkable to reward them with a bonus.
He was referring to a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s final decision issued in December siding with Golden State Water. Claremont has yet to decide if it will concede or file an appeal. If the decision stands, Claremont could end up spending $14 million on the case, which includes Golden State Water’s legal fees.
Councilman Corey Calaycay acknowledged that the staff report failed to detail the evaluation and why the council felt Ramos deserved the bonus. The decision, he said, wasn’t just based on his performance on the Golden State Water case.
The staff report stated:
The City Council unanimously agreed that Mr. Ramos is doing an excellent job as city manager in managing projects, maintaining a strong financial situation, and serving as a leader both within the City organization and in the community.
In the past, previous city managers received a cost of living increase in lieu of a bonus. The difference, a bonus is a one-time reward while a cost of living has a long-term impact to the budget and the city’s ongoing contribution to that employee’s pension.
To put it into perspective, Calaycay said that Ramos’ total compensation is still less than the previous city manager.
Calaycay also pointed out that Belna has long opposed the city’s stance on the water issue.
Council members Larry Schroeder, Joe Lyons and Calaycay said the decision to proceed with eminent domain of the water system was a community decision.
Do not put the blame on the judge’s decision at the feet of the city’s manager who does a stellar job, Lyons said.
Source: Liset Márquez, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Files related to Claremont
- 20150308 Acquiring AVRWC is right move for Apple Valley
- 20150314 Expense of possible AVRWC acquisition difficult to gauge
- 20150514 Claremont Water System — Supplement to 2012 Appraisal Report
- 20150905 Letter: Lawyers, water, and money (O’Neil)
- 20150918 TOAV fires back at Coupal
- 20150923 Editorial: Water, takeovers, and the people
- 20151015 Cities and private equity firms fight over ownership of water systems
- 20160712 Public records request (Manning)
- 20160721 Conflict of interest (Manning)
- 20160904 Letter: Peter Allen supporting Measure V (Nassif)
- 20161012 Claremont Set To Raise Rates For Utilities
- 20161018 Will Apple Valley become California’s Flint, MI?
- 20161110 Statement of tentative decision (Claremont v. Golden State Water)
- 20161110 Judge issues tentative decision against city in water system acquisition trial (Claremont v. Golden State Water)
- 20161114 Measures V and W
- 20161115 Polls and votes
- 20161116 Another false narrative
- 20161116 Liberty sees Claremont’s eminent-domain loss as sign of things to come in Apple Valley
- 20161121 Voters show they want a say in water takeover issue (Hanson)
- 20161215 Another costly day for Apple Valley
- 20161218 Time to pay attention: An open letter to Larry Cusack
- 20170111 Claremont city manager getting a $21,000 bonus
- 20170114 Price tag for Claremont’s failed attempt to take over water system keeps rising
- 20170115 Our View: Time for foes to sit down and talk
- Time for the Town Council to listen for a change
- Response to Thomas Lecoq (Carloni)
- Time for a second opinion? (Carloni)
- 20170209 Avoiding the Claremont disaster (video)
- 20170213 Valley Voices: Apple Valley would be wise to work with Liberty Utilities (Wright)
- 20170216 James Belna on the Claremont eminent domain disaster (video)
- 20170220 Claremont resident talks [about] avoiding ‘disaster’ in Apple Valley
- 20170220 Conflict of interest
- 20170220 Letter: Response to Thomas Rice (Belna)
- 20170226 Letter: James Belna’s visit (Hanson)
- 20170226 Letter: Rice rebuttal (Trozpek)
- Claremont public records request
- Truth not tricks (Carloni)
- Comments to the Town Council opposing the ballot measure
- 20170314 Town Council meeting (McCarthy)
- 20170322 Skewing the facts (Hanson)
- 20170323 Letter: Sit down and settle (Henard)
- 20170406 Guest commentary: Government takeovers of water systems don’t deliver results — study
- Who pays?
- Responding to claims made on Facebook
- 20170508 Liberty Utilities radio ad — Claremont (audio)
- Not paying attention
- 20171010 Claremont reaches $4.8 million settlement agreement with Golden State Water
- 20171017 Claremont settlement reignites Apple Valley water war
- 20171026 Claremont cuts ties with its city attorney, law firm