Cody City Administrator Laurie Kadrich is resigning effective October 31 and there is darn little information available as to why. I think Cody is the lesser for it.
My wife served on the school board so I am aware that public boards are not allowed by lawyers to discuss personnel issues. I don't agree with this because you may have a darn good reason for the personnel actions you take but due to the fear of lawsuits no one representing a deep-pocketed entity can say anything. I think more often than not this silence just makes it look like the board screwed someone over. Sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not.
One clue Laurie left us as to what happened was her comment to the media that she refused to work for less money than she was offered in July. Translation: the board offered her less money or benefits while negotiating her next contract. You don't do this to an employee you're happy with. Translation: a segment of the board was unhappy with Laurie or her performance or both.
It is also public knowledge that the current mayor and councilman Miller spoke out against Laurie during their election campaigns. Their elections went a long way toward significantly changing the way Laurie approached her job.
I saw Laurie in action during both the Stockwell and Sedam regimes. When Stockwell was Mayor, Laurie eagerly proposed, presented and implemented long-term improvements for Cody. She created a team of department heads with good morale who were easy to deal with and embraced new ideas. Her and her team were always listening to citizens and looking for ways to improve the city. There was positive energy when we visited city hall.
After Sedam and Miller were elected, it was if Laurie was neutered. The eagerness for presenting city improvements stopped because she knew the mayor and Miller did not approve of her performance. She became more guarded and less eager to stick her neck out with new ideas. From my view, she was doing what she had to do to survive in the new management climate. I know of at least one great city employee who resigned due to the work environment change with the new regime. It was sad to watch.
But that is not unusual. I've managed large organizations. I know that different leaders have different values and priorities and styles. When you change the leadership at the top, you effect the entire organization. That is exactly why the city administrator should be a long-term employee that is supervised and guided, but not neutered, by the mayor and city council. The mayor and council are short-timers. Their terms will end. But the changes they make effect the entire organization even after they leave.
A stable administrator is the leader that the city employees - the ones who remain long after elected officials leave - count on to maintain a positive work climate. These employees have seen this climate change because some newly elected officials made it clear they were no fan of the administrator. This created an uncomfortable and adversarial work environment. People were unsure and afraid of implementing anything new. We picked this up during our dealings with city hall.
I don't know why the majority of the board was unhappy with Laurie. I hope they have good reasons. It would be a shame if she was run out because of big egos or preconceived plans.
I've seen Laurie and her team at its best and it is sad to see that potential reduced. It is disappointing that the mayor and council could not recognize and nurture her best traits while nudging her to polish the traits we don't know about that made them unhappy. But when you lose a long-term employee of Laurie's caliber, it is a failure. It's a failure of Laurie's ability to adapt to the new demands and a failure of the new leadership to clearly communicate those desires.
Because of election results, we now rely on this same leadership to select her replacement.
I'm sure Laurie will be fine. And the city of Cody will be fine too. But it won't be as good as it could have been and that makes me think we are all the lesser for it.