Anaheim City Council Agrees Not to Agree on Utility Chief’s Bonus

Anaheim Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt sat in the back of the City Council chamber Tuesday expecting to hear the council approve an agreement that could have meant as much as $64,500 in supplementary pay for him over the next four years.

Instead, Hoyt heard a bitter debate that ended in a 2-2 stalemate. It was another vivid example of a council paralyzed by disagreement.

Also Tuesday, the council deadlocked once more on the appointment of a council member to fill the seat left vacant by Don R. Roth’s resignation after he was elected a member of the the Board of Supervisors. And after that, the council deadlocked 2 to 2 on a recommendation to appoint a special committee to help select a new council member.

“I feel with all my heart and soul this is absolutely paralyzing the city,” Mayor Pro Tem Miriam Kaywood said.

Councilman Irv Pickler said: “This City Council is the laughing stock of Orange County, and I imagine we look pretty silly to our constituents in Anaheim.

Paralysis Feared

“If we do not find a way to break the deadlock, we run the risk of paralyzing the city with indecision and squandering valuable tax dollars on an unnecessary political adventure. We also run the risk of months of political deadlock and administrative indecision as we can see today.”

Some council members and observers say the city will have to have a special election in June because the four-member council will not be able to agree on an appointment.

Tuesday, council members could not agree on Hoyt’s employment terms--involving the city’s equivalent of a corporate bonus. The three-year agreement, with a fourth-year option, translated to $7,000 in 1987, another $14,000 in 1988, $21,000 in 1989 and $22,500 more in 1990 if the option year is used. Hoyt’s salary--$98,846 plus benefits--is second in Anaheim only to City Manager William O. Talley and one of the highest paid public positions in the county.

Mayor Ben Bay, noting that budget hearings are scheduled this summer, wanted to postpone a decision on Hoyt’s employment agreement until June 16. Councilman Fred Hunter agreed.

‘Philosophical Difference’

Saying he heard “glowing reports” about Hoyt as a “quasi-superman,” Hunter said the issue “is not Mr. Hoyt” but a “philosophical difference with staff” regarding salary raises. Bay has consistently opposed management salary packages, and Hunter ran on a similar platform in last November’s election.

Pickler and Kaywood said they saw the request for a postponement as a move to make the issue coincide with the June election of a fifth council member, a tie-breaker with the potential to create a new council majority.

“Maybe we should all go home and come back on June 16,” Pickler said.

The request for a postponement took Pickler and Kaywood by surprise. Pickler said the council had agreed to the pay increase during a closed session, when personnel matters often are discussed.

“If they didn’t want to do it,” then they shouldn’t have placed the item on a public agenda, Hoyt said after the vote. He said he was surprised, hurt and “very disappointed” with the council’s vote.

“It’s not going to make life here easier,” Hoyt said. “It’s clearly not a vote of confidence.”

Hoyt said he requested the additional money , and Talley said he saw the extra dollars as “a small insurance policy” that the city would not lose one of its most valuable employees to private industry or another utility. Hoyt said he has been in contact with other prospective employers.

Calls Hoyt Catalyst

The city manager said Hoyt was a catalyst for various projects that have saved the city millions of dollars and was leading negotiations with the Edison Co. regarding electric utility operations. He said Hoyt’s expertise is needed for various pending lawsuits, such as an antitrust lawsuit in which about $150 million is at stake.

Kaywood called the denial of Hoyt’s request “a public slap in the face” to an employee the city cannot afford to lose.

Pickler said: “I want him. If he goes, you don’t know what we’d be losing in the city.”

Hunter said he is “not against giving Mr. Hoyt a raise” but opposes the “mechanics” of it.

Hunter, elected to the council last November, has criticized the council’s relations with the manager, saying too much power is given to the city manager and his staff. Hoyt’s employment agreement was an example, according to Hunter, of how “things are pre-ordained. By the time the reports come to us, we’re supposed to rubber-stamp them.”

To settle the issue of the vacant council seat, Pickler on Tuesday suggested a “special screening committee” of 11 or 12 community members who would review potential council candidates and recommend the top three. Bay and Hunter rejected Pickler’s recommendation, which died in the usual 2-2 vote.

Bay and Hunter have staunchly supported businessman William D. Ehrle for the vacant seat. Ehrle came in fourth in the Nov. 4 race for three City Council seats.

Kaywood and Pickler have just as adamantly opposed Ehrle and nominated others for the post. Bay and Hunter have refused those suggestions and have said the issue should now go back to the voters.