To mark his 100th day in office, Mayor Tim Davlin held a press conference in which he received a report from his transition team.
The press conference was largely ceremonial; Davlin had met weekly with the
committee, and he said its recommendations were based on his ideas. For the
cameras, the mayor appeared with committee chairman Joe Wilkins and four other
members of the seven-person team.
Flanking their table were two easels, each with a large exhibit board draped
in brown paper. With a bit of fanfare, the brown wrappers came off, revealing
the “existing” and “recommended” organizational charts for city government.
Differences between the two were immediately apparent. The “existing” chart
shows 10 departments; the “recommended” chart shows 15, adding a director of
hometown security, a chief information officer, an inspector general, a director
of communications, and an education liaison–all cabinet-level positions.
And in a controversial recommendation, the new chart recommends creating a
department called Public Infrastructure to oversee both public works and CWLP–apparently
placing 850 jobs under the jurisdiction of former Democratic county chairman
Todd Renfrow.
But standing in the back of the room, developer Mike Pittman focused on another
change in the chart. Squinting at the easels, Pittman muttered under his breath,
“Man, what happened to the chief of staff?”
And as the press conference proceeded, and in the days that followed, Pittman’s
quiet query became–much to Davlin’s dismay–the question that would not go away.
According to the current organizational chart, the chief of staff is positioned
between the mayor and the department heads, linked directly to all of them.
The new chart eliminates that title, replacing it with a job called “assistant
to the mayor”–just one of 15 officials linked to the mayor. What makes this
recommendation particularly controversial is the person who now holds the chief
of staff title–Letitia Dewith-Anderson, whose appointment made her the highest
ranking African-American in the history of Springfield [see “Mayor Davlin’s
right-hand woman,” May 8, Illinois Times ].
This move became fraught with racial overtones. The only two black members
of the transition committee–Urban League president Allan Woodson and former
city accountant Christine Belle, who were absent from the press conference–both
recommended against changing Dewith-Anderson’s title. The list of people the
transition committee talked with in formulating their recommendations includes
no African-Americans. And the new chart the transition committee composed shows
the “assistant to the mayor” with jurisdiction over one other city office–Community
Relations, the only office currently headed by an African-American. The 71-page
transition report is silent on the issue of race and racial problems in Springfield,
except in the context of avoiding legal liability.
Unity for the Community, a multicultural group of local activists, has scheduled
a special meeting to discuss the reorganization Friday night at 6:30 in Union
Baptist Church.
Davlin, however, seems unaware of the how the report and specifically the
change in Dewith-Anderson’s status plays in the black community. “What you’re
doing is putting names instead of positions,” he complained to reporters assembled
at a follow-up press conference hastily called a few days later. “As you can
see, there are no names on this table. This has nothing to do with personnel.
This has to do with removing barriers and walls between a form of government
and the mayor.”
That press conference, held in the mayor’s conference room on Davlin’s 105th
day as mayor, was announced at 7 a.m., two hours before it began. In a departure
from custom, Davlin’s staff did not distribute any printed materials. The mayor
gave a short speech about honesty, loyalty, and costly mistakes made under the
previous administration, mentioning the $60 million CWLP scandal, and the $180,000
bill from the Peoria law firm hired to investigate racism in the police department.
“In the previous administrations, there has been a barrier, a wall that has
been set up between those administrators and the mayor. And this table, this
organizational chart, removes the wall,” Davlin said, gesturing toward the easel
with the new chart. “I don’t think there is accountability in the mayor’s office
when you have that wall or that barrier there.”
Davlin admitted that he had had “absolutely no complaints” about Dewith-Anderson’s
performance, and reiterated her salary and responsibilities have not changed,
regardless of how lines are drawn on the chart. Unlike the 100th day press conference,
during which she took a sick day, she was present at this event, leaning against
the wall in the back of the room. Some reporters tried to question her, but
she declined to answer and left when Communications Director Ernie Slottag announced
that the press conference would soon be ending.
Rudy Davenport, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, ended the press
conference by continuing the “barrier” theme, only the one he spoke of was Slottag,
who had initially prevented him from attending the media event. After Davenport
asked various reporters to “witness” that he was being barred from the event,
he was allowed to enter the conference room.
Shortly after the press conference, Davlin headed for another appointment
with three members of the transition committee–Wilkins, Michael Ayers, and Jill
Leka.
•••
Another major change proposed by Mayor Davlin’s Transition Committee is the
elimination of the Community Services department, transferring its functions
to other departments. Under the new plan, public health would become its own
department, building and zoning would move to public works, business licensing
would move to the corporation counsel’s office, and community relations would
answer to the mayor’s assistant. The Lincoln Library would be under the auspices
of Planning and Economic Development.
The Human Resources Department, headed by Larry Selinger, brother of Ward
9 alderman Tom Selinger, would oversee recruiting for other city departments
“to reduce the number of [law] suits involving hiring and promotion and improve
the city’s defense in such suits.”
The plan also specifies that Human Resources would “implement drug and alcohol
testing for police officers” and “develop and implement a lateral hire program”
for the police department. The Springfield Police Department has had both programs
in place since spring 2001.
The proposed Department of Public Infrastructure would not only take over
public works and building and zoning but also create a new office–the Office
of Public Infrastructure Operations–to house administrative staff for CWLP and
public works. Public Infrastructure would also oversee some major projects,
including at least the early planning for a new power plant and another $40
million in improvements in water works. The transition committee also recommends
that the city raise water rates, which have not increased since 1996.
Other ideas recommended by the Transition Committee include:
•Entering into a contract with “government liaisons” or lobbyists to promote
Springfield to state and federal legislative bodies. An ordinance proposed weeks
ago named Rick Davis and Bob Kjellander as potential lobbyists to work on behalf
of CWLP.
•Having all departmental public information officers filter any planned statements
or reports through the Director of Communications in order to ensure that “information,
messages, etc. provided to the public through City offices . . . be consistent
in tone and content.”
•The creation of a new “education liaison” position, in keeping with Davlin’s
campaign promise. Some council members have been told this position will have
no salary.
•Conducting a study on the feasibility of building a new fire station on the
city’s southwest side
•Buying small “first response” vehicles that could respond to the more than
60 percent of fire department calls that are for medical service only.
•Creating a business advisory council, composed of area CEOs who will meet
with Davlin bi-monthly to provide him with “a sounding board for new ideas and
information and perspectives, at the CEO level, of trends and other changes
or movements occurring within the CEOs’ industries” that might have an effect
on Springfield.
The council’s side
We asked City Council members whether they had read
the mayor’s reorganization report, then we asked for their reactions. Here are
excerpts from their answers.
Ward 1–Frank Edwards:
He has read the entire report, re-calculated the budget
numbers, and watched the videotape of the press conference.
“I think [Todd Renfrow has] just way too much influence
for one individual to have. If he wanted to control everything, he should’ve
run for mayor. . . . I’m pretty disappointed [about Letitia Dewith-Anderson].
. . . If you’re going to appoint a high-level minority, make sure it works.
Don’t jerk the rug out from under somebody. I think it sends the wrong message.
This looks like a white boys club.”
Ward 2–Frank McNeil:
He “looked through it.”
“[What happened to Dewith-Anderson] dashed the hopes of
a lot of African-Americans that thought we finally got into the big house to
some degree, and now it seems like the good ol’ boys said, ‘Oh no, we can’t
have that.’ I’m almost at a loss for words–can you believe it? I guess what
I’m saying is: I thought the sensitivity had been raised to a different level.
For the transition committee to not talk to any African Americans period-it’s
to me a gross oversight or a total lack of sensitivity.”
Ward 3–Frank Kunz:
He has read “most of it.”
“It looks like Todd gained power, but I always heard that’s
what he wanted. . . . What I don’t understand is why that surprises anybody.
I guess what I find so ironic is the fact that if it had been Todd in Letitia’s
place and vice versa-people right now wouldn’t be griping. To me, it’s all relative.
The power he has is in hiring, but he can’t do anything that costs over $15,000
without council approval.”
Ward 4–Chuck Redpath:
He hasn’t read the report, “but I know what’s in it.”
“Todd’s expertise is that he’s an excellent manager. He
owned Renfrow Auto Parts, a lot of real estate. . . . He has been on boards
and commissions for governors and mayors, he has been director of public works
for the city. . . . He is very well qualified. That’s why there was not a lot
of opposition to his confirmation. He’s been around, knows all the players,
knows how to run a business. He’s successful at everything he’s done. And he
listens to me!”
Ward 5–Joe Bartolomucci:
He “skimmed through” the report.
“I think it’s quite unfortunate. He hired Letitia right
off the bat when this city obviously had a lot of racial problems. I thought
it could mend a lot of fences, I thought she’s a role model, a very capable
administrator, from right here in Springfield. And then to come out with this
report of the transition committee apparently not even letting her know their
plans and basically marginalizing her in public, I think it kind of shows the
chaotic course this administration’s taking, and I have to wonder who’s at the
helm.”
Ward 6–Mark Mahoney
Mahoney was out of town this week.
Ward 7–Judy Yeager:
“I think we have anointed a king–Todd Renfrow. I guess,
this is just me being catty or whatever the barbs thrown at me will be–but he
wanted very much to be mayor, and maybe this is if he couldn’t be mayor. He
made certain one of his very good and trusted friends could be mayor. Kings
make more [money] than mayors, after all.”
Ward 8–Irv Smith:
He was “halfway through” the report.
“[Todd Renfrow] has got everything. I can’t believe the
power grab. He controls zoning, building rules and regulations, he wants to
control the sewers, water, electricity, roads. He wants everybody to come to
him with their checkbooks. He’ll have a bitch of a time, because it doesn’t
work that way. People won’t put up with that.”
Ward 9–Tom Selinger:
Selinger was out of town this week.
Ward 10–Bruce Strom:
He has “only read a portion of it.”
“My concern for the last 60 days or so is that the mayor
has not given the City Council a budget. . . . His response was, well, it will
come within the 100-day time frame. And I don’t see a budget. I still don’t
see a budget. . . .
“I have the feeling they want to piecemeal this thing
through. . . . It’s much more difficult to rationalize voting for or against
a certain thing if you don’t have the whole picture of the budget all at one
time, and the opportunity to have public discussion about it.”
This article appears in Jul 31 – Aug 6, 2003.
