To the Editor:
The Cloquet City Council story in the March 9 Pine Journal stated that Springsted was hired to recruit a new city administrator. It also said the city hired Springsted to find a new police chief. Does the name Springsted sound familiar? Isn't that the same company who made a $3 million error on the middle school referendum and then didn't cover the cost? Now our police chief, recruited by Springsted, is being investigated while on paid administrative leave. It seems to me that this company has not served our community very well. Why do we keep doing business with them? Was a lesson missed?
In addition, there are a couple of other things here that seem out-of-whack.
Why do we hire someone to hire someone? We hire some company to search for and recommend candidates. Yet, we pay each of our city council members an attractive salary each year. Why shouldn't the council be doing the search and advertising for the position? How much are we paying these companies?
In addition, putting an employee on paid administrative leave seems to be too lucrative. Does the employee still get to take their regular paid leave also? Why not administrative leave without pay? Then, once the issue is resolved and if there is no infraction, go ahead and make the payment that was withheld. But if there was an infraction, then no pay. In the military, which is also a government entity, there is such a thing as forfeiture of pay for wrongdoing. Withholding pay during an investigation might be an incentive for employees to give a second thought about engaging in a questionable act.
Does any of this make sense, or am I off the mark?
Dan Unulock
Cloquet
