‘Destin is a special place’ City negotiating with former city manager Greg Kisela

January 2013 :   “Port Orange is a special place”
June 2014 :    “Destin is a special place” …

KiselaDestin

Former City Manager Greg Kisela may once again call Destin home,
as he is in negotiations with the city about filling the role as city manager.

Kathy Harrison | The Log



By Matt Algarin
Published: Friday, June 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM.


 
Given the recent resignation of City Manager Maryann Ustick, city leaders have agreed to pursue a familiar face — Greg Kisela — as a replacement.
“We have an opportunity right now… to bring someone in who is already experienced,” Councilman Jim Foreman told his colleagues. “He would be the ideal candidate for this job.”
City leaders held a special meeting Wednesday night to discuss the path forward, as Ustick will stay with the city until Aug. 16 per her contract. Ustick, who was hired by the city in 2011, decided to resign so she could be closer to her family in the west.
Ustick interviewed earlier this week for a job in New Mexico, and and been offered and accepted the postion. She will be the city manager in Gallup, New Mexico.
As for the city’s former City Manager Kisela, he told The Log Thursday morning that he was a “bit surprised” that the city reached out to him about the pending vacancy, but it’s something he would seriously consider.
“Destin is a special place,” he said. “When different folks called me and asked me if I’d be willing to come home, I said ‘I don’t know,’ but the more I thought about it I thought it was something I should at least think about.”
Kisela served as Destin’s city manger for 7 ½ years. He stepped down from his position to become the county administrator in Walton County. He currently serves as the city manger in Port Orange, Fla.

The next step is for Mayor Mel Ponder to begin negotiations with Kisela, who made a base salary of $116, 197.87 when he left the city. Ustick’s current contract pays her a base salary of $119,000, plus a monthly $400 vehicle allowance, and benefits package.

As part of the discussion Wednesday night, Councilman Tuffy Dixon told his colleagues that he wouldn’t want to “exceed” Kisela’s previous contract. Councilwoman Prebble Ramswell suggested she would be comfortable “going as high as our current city manager.”

 When it comes to numbers, that’s all part of the negotiation process, but Kisela told The Log money is not a motivating factor for him.

“This is not going to be about money, it would be about quality of life,” he said.

City leaders would ideally like to have something tangible in hand by their July 7 meeting.

The next step is for Mayor Mel Ponder to begin negotiations with Kisela, who made a base salary of $116, 197.87 when he left the city. Ustick’s current contract pays her a base salary of $119,000, plus a monthly $400 vehicle allowance, and benefits package.
As part of the discussion Wednesday night, Councilman Tuffy Dixon told his colleagues that he wouldn’t want to “exceed” Kisela’s previous contract. Councilwoman Prebble Ramswell suggested she would be comfortable “going as high as our current city manager.”
When it comes to numbers, that’s all part of the negotiation process, but Kisela told The Log money is not a motivating factor for him.
This is not going to be about money, it would be about quality of life,” he said.
City leaders would ideally like to have something tangible in hand by their July 7 meeting.
via    News – The Destin Log.

11 thoughts on “‘Destin is a special place’ City negotiating with former city manager Greg Kisela

  • June 28, 2014 at 8:54 am
    Permalink

    Kisela would have been a good fit for Port Orange, and his administration would have been a lot more creditable if he had not formed the strategic alliance with Mayor Green early on in his tenure with the city.

    Reply
  • June 28, 2014 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    John, would have, could have, but he chose not to. Instead he immediately aligned himself with Green, began lying to the council, siding with special interests, and screwing the employees per Green’s edicts. He then imported a crew of incompetent FCCMA misfits retreads for big bucks that functioned as appendages of himself and Green’ self interested agenda. This is the reason why the organization is imploding now.
    Green is to blame also but trying to deflect all the blame to Green and exonerating Kisela would be like trying to exonerate the false prophet and deflecting all of the blame to the antichrist. They are like carrots and peas or soup and salad. You can’t have one without the other.
    Now that Kisela is going Green can only continue his shit if he finds another city manager who is willing to sell out and play the same role that Kisela has with him. So when you say that Kisela would have been the right fit for Port Orange if he did not align himself with Green, I would say then that he would.t be the person he is, and he wouldn’t be Greg Kisela because his covert narcissistic poker playing soul has been long in the making.
    Quit trying to justify him and just be glad he is on his way down the road and he will no longer be our problem.

    Reply
  • June 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
    Permalink

    As long as Master Green is around and allowed to be on a power trip primarily due to his long tenure, the situation will never improve. The council bobble heads will not stand up to him. Hell the guy has a building named after him and he is still alive !

    Reply
  • June 28, 2014 at 10:56 am
    Permalink

    In this mornings News Journal there is an article about the resignation of Fire Chief Pozzo. Mayor Allen Greens comment was “The council is trying to run every department and has overstepped their boundaries”. Can you really imagine him having the nerve to make that statement???
    He has been orchestrating and manupulating the council for years and years and they have gone along like sheep to slaughter with his “ideas” and plans. If Council is guilty of anything it is not inteferring enough. They do not have their fingers on the pulse of citizens and employees alike.
    I also read an excerpt from the Sociologist and teacher, Helen Merrell Lynd which states “One of the sources of pride in being a human being is the ability to bear present frustrations in the interest of longer purposes.”
    My thanks go out to Ted Noftall, The Gardners, Don Juan Matus, Floki, Richard Woodman, Port Orange Senior, Hank Springer , Mazie Daisy and the others who are brainiacs, can spot the problems, assess them and have the courage to speak out.
    So Dear Mayor Wiley Coyote Green….be on the lookout the Road Runner and Gang are right behind you. BEEP,BEEP.

    Reply
  • June 29, 2014 at 2:56 am
    Permalink

    Why Your Organization Suffers From Leadership Dysfunction
    Comment Now Follow Comments
    Have you ever wondered why organizations tolerate dysfunctional leaders? The answer is dysfunction is so prevalent it’s often not even recognized as problematic. Many corporations just desire leaders to go along and get along more than they desire them to lead. It saddens me to articulate this next thought – corporate leadership is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.
    Think of those you know in a position of leadership, and if you know what you’re looking for, you’ll find they are likely not a leader, but a risk manager. When leaders become conformists who desire to control instead of surrender, they not only fail to inspire and challenge, they fail to lead. Leadership has become synonymous with babysitting in many organizations, which does nothing more than signal a lack of trust in the workforce. I can think of no time in modern history where employees feel less valued and trusted. Remember, a leaders job is not to place people in a box, but to free them from boxes.
    It’s not difficult to find signs of leadership dysfunction in most organizations – all you have to do is open your eyes. Most businesses eventually reach a point of what they refer to as maturity – I call it institutionalization. This phenomenon occurs when blending to the norm sadly becomes the norm. The larger an organization becomes, the more acceptable mediocrity seems to become. Therein lies the problem; leadership exists to disrupt mediocrity – not embrace it.
    When history offers its commentary on the evolution of modern business practices, the surprise storyline will be that corporations have been engaged is systematically killing leadership – they are unwittingly participating in leadership genocide. The so-called advances in organizational design theory have been so grossly over-weighted toward risk management, organizations are now built to prevent failure rather than encourage success. Real leaders don’t possess an unhealthy fear of failure – they encourage team members to take risks.
    When process becomes more important than people, when collaboration is confused with having a meeting, when potential is held in higher regard than performance, and when independent thinking takes a backseat to conformity, leadership is dysfunctional at best. Leadership simply cannot be engineered according to the mass adoption of a set of rules (best practices). Leadership is about breaking the rules to discover change and innovation (next practices).
    What passes for acceptable corporate leadership has regrettably become a watered down, commoditized, politically correct version of the real thing. Until organizations reject those playing leadership and embrace those willing to challenge the status quo, offer new thought, encourage dissenting opinion, and who desire to serve instead of seeking to be served, we’ll continue to see organizations struggle unnecessarily.
    Thoughts?

    Reply
  • June 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business
    Comment Now Follow Comments
    The idea that government should be run like a business is a popular one with both Republicans and, albeit to a lesser extent, Democrats. But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of the roles of the private and public sector. We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government.
    Those popularizing this notion feel this way because they see business as more efficient. This must be the case, so the logic goes, or the entity in question would lose market share and go bankrupt. Only the fit survive. Meanwhile, government agencies face no backlash. This is why we have long lines to get driver’s licenses, poorly maintained VA hospitals, inferior returns on investment from Social Security, etc., etc. Were there a choice on where to be licensed to drive, then such offices would forced to make the customer’s experience a positive one or they would go elsewhere.
    There are, of course, many businesses that also make the customer’s life very unpleasant because simply being in the private sector does not guarantee effective competition. The American Medical Association has, for example, argued for years that very few people actually have much choice when it comes to health care. It is a very concentrated industry, meaning that they can demand payment while giving only a vague idea of coverage (which may well change over time and with little to no notice) and they can delay reimbursement. And there are government agencies, like police and fire departments, where their dedication to duty has nothing to do with profit. They put their lives on the line every day because they think it’s the right thing to do.
    But while we might all grant that there are exceptions, the general question still stands: does it make sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Bear in mind, first, that “efficiency” in the private sector means profit. Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. Reality TV, pornography, fashion, sports, and gambling are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining a standing military by selling subscriptions door-to-door: “Hello, my name is Captain Johnson, and I represent the US Army. Are you afraid of foreigners? Would you like guaranteed protection against invasion, pillaging, enslavement, and more? Please see our brochure for our three levels of service.” There would, of course, be a few subscribers, but nothing approaching the level necessary to truly protect the United States from attack.
    To reiterate, the key issue is this: not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. The proper role of government is the latter. Those arguing for a business model for government must necessarily be ready to shut down all government functions that do not earn a profit, regardless of their contribution to our well being. And, if the public sector is being run properly, that should mean every single one. If it’s profitable, they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. There is no need for the government to start a chain of hamburger stands, hardware stores, or coffee shops. Rather, they run child protective services, the National Park Service, and the Air Force. Profit is the realm of business, while unprofitable but socially useful tasks is the responsibility of government.
    This is not to say that every government agency is actually performing a useful public service or that it is not wasting resources (by whatever standard). Nor am I arguing that there are not many private sector activities that add greatly to our well being. The point, however, is that saying that government is inefficient because it does not turn a profit is the equivalent of saying that Peyton Manning is a poor quarterback because he doesn’t hit enough home runs. He’s not supposed to.

    Reply
  • June 29, 2014 at 3:59 pm
    Permalink

    What makes any organization good for employees and customers?
    Mandar Nilange May 27, 2011 Blog
    I have worked with multiple organizations and love to watch the overall strategy, understand differences even for organizations where I did not work. This article is the result of my observations in last few years.
    Largely, I have observed following themes or criteria have differentiated a very good organization to an average organization.
    Mission/Objective – Mission or objective for which an organization exists is one of the important parameters. Though all organizations have a mission statement, a vision statement but very few define it very clear or communicate it very clearly. Many organizations end up defining a mission statement such a narrow that after start in few years it’s already achieved and makes no sense to carry it forward. Others end up defining it too vague and leaving it to open interpretations and confuse employees.
    Practically mission statement if used effectively, enables employees to focus on right things and helps decision making clear.
    Accountability – a scalable organization builds accountability in the system and decentralizes decision making. This leads to an organization which can scale and is much faster to change. For example, one of my bosses told me do anything you want to all I care about is 4 parameters meet revenue targets, profitability targets, team should be happy and customer rating should be good. These are only 4 parameters help everyone focus on right things. Increase top line, bottom line and keep employees/customers happy. This organization does not get in micro managing how many hours one spent in office and how were they utilized. Manager responsible for program/account can take decisions about how his organization works. Any of the 4 measured parameters are enough for management to identify anything alarming.
    Strong executive management and communication – on the ground all employees are busy doing day to day business and it’s important for executive management to focus on overall organization strategy. Where do we want to go from here? What is needed for that? What challenges need to be addressed? Once a high level strategy is defined, it must be communicated to all employees and a team responsible for executing it must be defined.
    Any of these parameters are missing then organization struggles and just survives. Lack of strong executive management and mission/vision leads to confused teams, who do not know what a right direction is because they are not clear where are we headed. Accountability is not built and decision making is not decentralized then leads to bottlenecks and since very few people can take decision it might lead into a bureaucratic organization, which would more and more tough to move.

    Reply
    • June 30, 2014 at 8:07 am
      Permalink

      Some definite similarities with what has been going on in Port Orange. I believe Mr. Jones got about $350,000 due to our CM’s actions. Seems like a pattern. Could that happen here?

      Reply
  • June 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, and I predict it is forthcoming. It looks like Mr. Kisela will probably be served several subpoenas in the future to answer for some of his past sins still awaiting restitution. I suppose he can roll that into a vacation here in sunny Daytona Beach while he is at it. Mr. Kisela is good at turning a sows ear into a silk purse for himself at the expense of others.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.