Oakdale

The Oakdale Administrator Case focused on two key topics, financial management and decision making. Other lesser topics covered were ethics and political context. The case study represented a normal and often read case of politics. Meaning, Mayor Bean, the incumbent, argued for what he did in office and the things he managed to fix. When Mr. Hoffnagel, the outsider came in, he downplayed the former’s efforts, stating he was going to solve and fix everything the former could not. Such a platform of ‘change’ would work in a small town because change is easier to promote and implement. However, in a large city, this could very well be a lie that could make Hoffnagel, the new Bean. “In April 2003, Ernie Hoffnagel, a former alderman, was elected mayor of Oakdale over the incumbent, Carl Bean. Hoffnagel, a slight man in his late fifties and a car salesman by profession, focused his campaign on revitalizing the city by attracting new businesses and residents” (Cropf, Giancola, & Loutzenhiser, 2016, p. 81).
When the new mayor was hired, he brought in his own team, dismissing the old administration. Although this is not new, presidents when they come into power have the ability to choose a new cabinet, but problems arose for the new mayor when he did this. He made some of his choices based on friendship.
I have known Angela for twenty years and worked with her for five. Much like me, she has made and acknowledged her mistakes. Yet, her actions were not criminal, but they were done out of a desire to make changes and improve lives. My administration will not be about waiting, but about evolving. To that end, I ask you to begin the healing process and overlook her early mistakes made out of an over-eagerness to reform (Cropf, Giancola, & Loutzenhiser, 2016, p.82).
By hiring one of his friends, Angela Donny, he made the mistake of choosing with emotion instead of logic. What does this mean?
Angela Donny had issues prior to being hired. Her past showed she lacked professionalism. She had poor decision-making abilities and she did not provide the level of work ethic needed. This kind of behavior led to negative outcomes for the new mayor and a disappointing start to a new term.
This leads to the four topics and where they are each revealed in the case study. To begin, the easiest topic to cover is ethics. The now Mayor Hoffnagel promised change and all these good things that the previous mayor could not. Specifically, the new major promised a change in the housing inspection policy so it can be better able to identify problems via a more rigorous format. He also promised a new modern look for retail centers as well as proper maintenance of them.
He sold everything to the citizens in a way that made it seem like things would be great and there would be great outcomes. This is not an outlier when it comes to political campaigns. People expect some false promises when it comes to politicians. However, because his background in salesmanship allowed him to display more promises than he could keep, the disappointment when things were wrong were greater.
By wanting to “Remodel the City of Oakdale”, he made it seem like he knew what to do perfectly and when perfectly was impossible, that is when things went sour. This was an ethical mistake, promising more than he could deliver (Landerer, 2016). But another ethical mistake that falls within decision-making was hiring a friend like Angela and cleaning house when he became Mayor. By removing people that had experience with the town and the policies in it, it made it more difficult to successfully implement the kind of changes he promised to Oakdale’s citizens.
Going back to Angela. Hiring Angela was emotional, a poor decision, and hurt his reputation. Angela has received a bad public reputation thanks to being investigated by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). She made bad, unethical decisions herself that led to her being investigated. Although she had a shady past, because Hoffnagel knew her for some two decades, none of that mattered. So, when she became City Manager and began looking for contractors for the building of new buildings and stores, the committee were not happy with her choices. She failed to take their opinion into consideration and did what she felt was appropriate.
Her choices came with months of ambiguity. While she notified them, someone was hired during this time, because the committee were not updated, not much could be done. Ultimately, the committee discovered that Angela submitted a $300,000 project proposal. This was not an accurate estimate because independent contractors/firms took until October to complete their assessment. When they did complete their assessment, it turned out to acquire the new properties and do everything, the amount would be $4.2 million dollars. That is more than ten times what was proposed by Angela.
The board decided to hold an emergency meeting to discuss these firms and the $4.2 million. When that happened the ICMA came back to investigate Angela and her friend, Mayor Hoffnagel, vouched for her saying, ‘she knew better’. But she did not and managed to make similar mistakes she made before. The ICMA Committee revealed to the Oakdale citizens she had failed in a few ways. The main way was not handing out the proper quantity of RFP’s and hiring unqualified people to begin construction and remodeling. This embarrassment cost not only Angela her position, but also Mayor Hoffnagel who resigned and left office.
Such poor decisions left a city frantic and someone needed to come in to fix everything. Therefore, an interim mayor was selected by the name of Marie Clarkson. Paul Asher was also hired serving as temporary city administrator. It took some time, but they began to discuss how to fix the mess left by Angela and Hoffnagel. The situation called for budget cuts in other areas in order to meet the real requirements and cost of construction and remodeling (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013). Ultimately, it took communication and proper management of resources to avert a disaster that would have been exacerbated under the poor handling of Angela and Hoffnagel.
Looking back at the political context of the case study, Oakdale mainly consisted of lower middle-class citizens. It was a small town with a population of 5,000. Being a small town with constituents with less income, the town itself was considered by those neighboring it, as an eyesore. With a worn out central business district and less than new buildings and stores, someone that came in promising to fix that seemed like a welcome change for the citizens. “The elements of revitalization have a good deal in common with what John Gardner calls ‘self-renewal’. For an organization, it means conscious attention to its own evolution” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017, p. 223). Hoffnagel seemed like he was capable of bringing in new business investments to Oakdale and that was the main reason why he won. When he chose to resign from office, that was an ethical decision made because he was not fit for the job thanks to the poor decisions he made by hiring Angela and letting her carry out the main reason why he was elected, restoring Oakdale’s business district.
When the interim mayor and administrator came in, they faced the touch decision to cancel or continue the large project. With Oakdale, already being in debt due to the mishaps by Angela, there needed to be changes made that would hurt Oakdale regardless of the decision. Because Oakdale the revitalization, by cutting corners elsewhere and putting resources into the revitalization of the town, this could help Oakdale while minimizing losses. If the project was abandoned, then Oakdale would have to take the loss and still remain an eyesore.
A potential solution could lie in having investors remodel the buildings purchased by the city. “Between 2003 and 2010, the city of Rotterdam purchased 169 old buildings in need of renovation. It soon became evident that renovating them would be extremely expensive, with the result that they would have to be put back on the market at unrealistic prices” (Hugentobler, Hofer, & Simmendinger, 2015, p. 46). The approach then became to allow independent initiatives to come and remodel the buildings and keep them after meeting occupancy requirements. This is an innovative approach in fixing a problem where funds are an issue.
In conclusion, decision-making can be a difficult process. Although politicians may seem like great choices due to the promises they make, they may end up making a situation worse. By the people of Oakdale selecting someone like Hoffnagel, they ended up paying more for their mistake. That is because Hoffnagel chose friendship and emotion over logic and policy. By investing trust in Angela, Hoffnagel disappointed and put in trouble Oakdale and its people.
References
Cropf, R. A., Giancola, J. M., & Loutzenhiser, K. K. (2016). The public administration casebook. Routledge.
Hugentobler, M., Hofer, A., & Simmendinger, P. (2015). More than housing: Cooperative planning - a case study in Zu?rich. Birkhäuser.
Landerer, N. (2016). Mass media and political decision-making: Analyzing mediatization in Switzerland. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public administration in America. Cengage Learning.
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Classics of public administration. Australia: Wadsworth.