{"id":536246,"date":"2018-03-02T09:07:06","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T16:07:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=536246"},"modified":"2018-03-02T09:07:06","modified_gmt":"2018-03-02T16:07:06","slug":"its-time-for-the-city-of-hobbs-to-move-on","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2018\/03\/its-time-for-the-city-of-hobbs-to-move-on\/","title":{"rendered":"It’s time for the City of Hobbs to move on"},"content":{"rendered":"

COMMENTARY:<\/strong> John J. \u201cJ.J.\u201d Murphy can no longer say he\u2019s the Hobbs city manager, but as \u201cSpecial Consultant to the Mayor\/City Commission\u201d he still collects paychecks and benefits as if he were.<\/p>\n

What could be better? In a city whose slogan is \u201cIt All Happens Here,\u201d and after Murphy\u2019s five-year tenure that wrought regular controversy and even national media shame<\/a>, one would think that Hobbs City Hall shenanigans would no longer shock us. But when the city commission settled out with J.J. last year, Murphy was promised extended employment with the city not to expire before June 2018 \u2013 and at that time he becomes fully vested in the state\u2019s retirement system.<\/p>\n

\"Nick

Courtesy photo<\/p>

Nick Maxwell<\/p><\/div>\n

Last spring, the State Auditor\u2019s Office launched its third investigation into alleged conflicts of interest involving the leadership at Hobbs City Hall. Then-State Auditor Tim Keller opined, \u201cperhaps the citizens of Hobbs could be better served with new leadership<\/a>.\u201d And four months later, perhaps the Hobbs City Commission heard that advice, because on Aug. 23, 2017, Murphy\u2019s tenure as city manager of Hobbs had come to an end<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Murphy had served out his five-year, thrice-amended contract, yet the golden handcuffs on the city would not be coming off with the end of his tenure. His contract\u2019s severance provision entitled Murphy to a year\u2019s worth of his salary as well as a bevy of benefits beyond belief that were outlined by fellow Hobbsan Jeanie Coates on NMPolitics.net<\/a> in mid-2015.<\/p>\n

For all the self-inflicted controversies that plagued Murphy\u2019s five years as city manager, the price tag on his severance seemed well worth the benefit to just make a clean break with Murphy and move on. Residents like Coates and Byron Marshall publicly called on commissioners to let the contract lapse and to pay out the one-year severance provided in his contract (It\u2019s time to end city manager\u2019s tenure in Hobbs<\/a>; It\u2019s time to let the Hobbs city manager go<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Instead of severing Murphy\u2019s ties to Hobbs city government, the commissioners approved a settlement agreement that extended Murphy\u2019s employment and gave him a new job title. Was it not possible to employ him as an independent consultant through the competitive procurement process? Why did commissioners insist on keeping Murphy on the payroll as a special-case employee of the city until June 2018?<\/p>\n

Murphy seemed shamelessly emboldened with each contract amendment as city manager during his five years — and, before his exit, he effortlessly secured the city\u2019s promise that he couldn\u2019t be terminated during his employment as a special consultant, unless he is convicted of a felony. The settlement, titled \u201cEmployment Transition And Settlement Agreement<\/a>,\u201d reads, \u201c[b]eginning on August 24, 2017 and continuing until June 30, 2018, his employment shall continue \u2026 [and] his service cannot be terminated as a Special Consultant to the Mayor\/City Commission \u2026 [except] because of a conviction of a felony\u201d (Sections 8c and 8a, Page 4).<\/p>\n

Who could argue with perks like \u201ccannot be terminated?\u201d Murphy received a much better deal as a special consultant than he ever did as the city\u2019s top executive.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn exchange for the releases, promises and obligations provided\u201d in the settlement, Murphy received a lump sum of $60,000 (a signing bonus), as well as \u201c[a] lump sum payment of all accrued PTO and military leave balances\u201d (Section 12a, Page 7). After taxes, Murphy\u2019s net payment was $55,753.01, and the check<\/a> was printed on Murphy\u2019s last day as city manager, Aug. 23.<\/p>\n

In addition to Murphy\u2019s big payday on his way out of the city manager\u2019s office, the City of Hobbs directly paid Murphy\u2019s privately-hired contract negotiating attorney, Las Cruces firm Almanzar and Youngers P.A.<\/a>, a lump sum of $33,000, along with more than $7,000 in reimbursable legal fees as part of the settlement. See the checks and Murphy\u2019s personal legal bills<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Along with being paid \u201c$183,976.00 in total wages for his services as Special Consultant from August 24, 2017 through June 30, 2018,\u201d the City of Hobbs continues to pay out on the employee benefit of contributions of nearly $900 per pay period to the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) for Murphy\u2019s retirement, in accordance with section 8f of his settlement and as evidenced by checks<\/a> obtained through a public records request.<\/p>\n

Although August 2017 marked the five-year anniversary and conclusion of Murphy\u2019s contract as city manager, it\u2019s June 2018 that marks the five-year anniversary of Murphy\u2019s PERA enrollment, according to his application form<\/a>. Whereas the City of Hobbs could have contracted with him as an independent consultant, by granting Murphy inseparable employment as an employee of the city, the commission generously guaranteed him to reach his five-year vesting mark in PERA.<\/p>\n

When Murphy\u2019s term as a special consultant reaches its end, he\u2019ll be guaranteed a pension benefit in retirement after he meets age requirements, according to PERA\u2019s handbook<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the city\u2019s failed October 2016 attempt to transition Murphy to a special consultant position through June 2018 (Hobbs commissioners reject severance agreement with city manager<\/a>) seems to back up the notion that Murphy\u2019s June 2018 end date has everything to do with aligning with and enabling his PERA vesting, rather than aligning his employment with the fiscal year, which ends June 30. Where else in New Mexico does a single municipal employee enjoy this kind of favored treatment?<\/p>\n

Murphy\u2019s previous contract<\/a> promised a severance payout that included one year of his salary of more than $180,000, his $750-per-month vehicle allowance, insurance coverage and \u201cany other available benefits\u201d (Section 10b Page 5). In real dollars, it seemed that the City of Hobbs saved very little with the settlement, which then begs the question of what leverage Murphy could have had to bring the City of Hobbs to the negotiating table.<\/p>\n

Topping the list of \u201creleases, promises and obligations\u201d that may be most valuable to the City of Hobbs is the \u201cMutual Release of Claims,\u201d wherein Murphy agreed not to sue the city for \u201cany and all actions \u2026 which might have been alleged to have arisen out of or relating to his employment with the City of Hobbs and\/or any other occurrence up to the date of this Agreement\u201d (Section 11a, Page 6).<\/p>\n

Likewise, the City of Hobbs released \u201cMurphy from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims or liabilities of any kind whatsoever \u2026 to have arisen out of or relating to his employment with the City of Hobbs and\/or any other occurrence up to the date of this Agreement\u201d (Section 11b, Pages 6 and 7). Coincidentally, the release is not an admission of liability or fault, the settlement clarifies.<\/p>\n

With more than a hunch to go on, the Hobbs City Commission may have concluded that, without Murphy\u2019s pledge in writing not to sue, the likelihood of litigation was too great. Before coming to New Mexico, Murphy sued a Pennsylvania town, Radnor Township, for not hiring him in 2009, citing discrimination of his ongoing military reserve duties.<\/p>\n

The 2014 trial was very telling: Radnor Township felt Murphy had overstated his qualifications; Murphy wasn’t among the top 17 of 76 applicants, but received an interview as a favor to one of the council members; reportedly, his brother, then-Congressman Patrick Murphy, had called the city and was perceived as trying to influence the selection. Murphy lost the case (Jury finds in favor of Radnor Township in case against manager candidate<\/a>) and the appeal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Aside from dodging a lawsuit, it\u2019s difficult to see the upside for the City of Hobbs in this settlement. It isn\u2019t just the payout that tips the scale in Murphy\u2019s favor. Perhaps the most valuable provision to Murphy is the \u201cMutual Non-Disparagement\u201d clause, which gags the city\u2019s \u201celected officials and managerial employees\u201d from \u201cany form of negative commentary, disparagement, derogatory activity or other similar behavior with respect to Murphy\u201d (Section 15, Page 8).<\/p>\n

What makes anybody this special? Murphy\u2019s new job description offers Hobbs taxpayers little assurance as to the value of his employment. He no longer attends public meetings of the city commission, effectively removing him from the watchful public eye. What exactly are Hobbs taxpayers getting for their money? Only one sentence in the settlement describes Murphy\u2019s new employment as a special consultant: \u201che will make every effort to continue to provide guidance with on-going personnel and city projects as directed by the Mayor\u201d (Section 8b, Page 4).<\/p>\n

The fact that Special Consultant Murphy\u2019s direction as an employee of the city comes only from the mayor, rather than the interim city manager or a new city manager, seems inconsistent with the city\u2019s adopted form of government. The charter<\/a> of the home-rule City of Hobbs prescribes a commission-manager form of government, meaning the commission appoints one employee whose job it is to \u201c(e)mploy, discipline and discharge employees of the City\u201d (Section 6-2B, Page 10).<\/p>\n

Since Murphy is an employee of the city, and since the interim city manager or a new city manager cannot discipline and discharge Murphy, it would seem Murphy\u2019s unbreakable employment is in conflict with the city\u2019s charter.<\/p>\n

Further, the city\u2019s municipal code<\/a> states, \u201cthe City Manager has and retains all rights to administer the affairs of the City, either personally or through his or her subordinates\u201d — which includes but is not limited to the right to \u201chire, promote, reclassify, transfer, assign, lay off\u2026, recall\u2026, reprimand, suspend, demote, discharge, or otherwise discipline employees\u201d in addition to other managerial and administrative duties (Section 2.56.050, Page 80). Since the interim city manager or a new city manager cannot generally manage Murphy, the settlement appears to be in conflict with the city\u2019s municipal code, as well.<\/p>\n

Worth noting is that despite officially relinquishing his manager duties and getting a new position title as \u201cSpecial Consultant to the Mayor\/City Commission,\u201d Murphy maintains online that he is the city manager. Entries on his website<\/a> and on other online profiles<\/a>, dated after his last day as the city manager, begin with \u201cJJ Murphy is the City Manager of the City of Hobbs.”<\/p>\n

Hobbs taxpayers and residents of other home-rule local governments need to weigh in on these two questions:<\/p>\n