I was first appalled by the story that Mr. Meany came out with about the details of the City manager search with the release of one person's name and the release of the fact that the other two male candidates had strikes against them already. Then to read today's paper made things more clear. It seems like Geneva Believer and other groups are trying to convince City Council to choose their candidate of choice. I have faith that Council will make the right decision and choose the most qualified person to be the City manager. Not necessarily a person who has people campaigning for them like its an election.

And to whoever leaked the information to Geneva Believer - you should be ashamed!!!!!!!

If the assertions are factual, why should anyone be ashamed for reporting them? I for one don't want public officials serving in office who are guilty of such serious ethical and/or legal violations. The fact that someone has people 'campaigning' for them is completely irrelevant to their qualifications. If you have an issue with lack of transparency, then someone 'leaking' information seems the perfect antidote.

The direction this selection process or better yet the reaction to it is disturbing.

What I have issue with is that it appears that a single spokesperson/ blogger is now trying to subvert the review process. I'm all for transparency when selecting candidates and the process in general. What appears to be happening now is an attempt to circumvent the selection process. We have a representative democracy. You elect people to make the everyday decisions and handle the business of government.

I guess the rule now is if you don't like the way elected officials make decisions you overrule them with social media campaigns. While being a watchdog is great there is that small step to becoming the non-elected authority. It's a temptation that we all should be aware of and avoid.

There is a big difference between whistle-blowing (alerting the public after going through official channels of a REAL wrong doing or some threat to public safety) and leaking (the passing along of information in the hope to affect the outcome of what in many cases is a legal process).

This isn't campaigning at all. It's hi-jacking of the committee review process thinly veiled as a cry for transparency. The recruitment for this job was very public and the committee list was not secret information. At some point do we hire a City Manager by public direct vote?? Seriously? At what point do you let the folks you elected do what they were elected for?

Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

Amen Pingu.

I'll second that, right on Pingu.

Well said.

I totally agree. Meany has an agenda and he will force his agenda anyway he can. Even pretending this is about transparency.

And the City Council might be stupid enough to fall for it. I hope that when a vote comes each councilor has the courage to vote how they feel, not how people have told them to vote. A unanimous vote would be a farce!

I believe each council member recommended people in their district to be on the selection committee. They then worked with their ideas. I would hope that they do not vote on how they feel but on the input they have received from the committee and their constituents.

A single person with a blog cannot "subvert" anything in city government. I may write something on the blog that will prompt others to take action. Other times, I'll write something that people will mostly ignore. But the blog alone isn't going to do anything. I'm flattered that you are telling people that I am somehow more powerful than city government itself, but it's quite a stretch and not exactly logical.



Then you should be upset at the complete lack of transparency in the city manager search process. City officials claimed that they were using the same process they used in 2009 to select Matt Horn, but that turned out to be a lie. Dozens of cities publicly release the names of candidates, and many even hold public forums introducing the candidates to the people they will serve. Yet Geneva city council chose to go in the opposite direction.

And if you're "all for transparency," then you should be pleased that the process has been made more transparent, thanks to a handful of sources close to the search.

Or maybe you're not as much of a supporter of transparency as you think you are.



No, it's an attempt to circumvent unnecessary secrecy in city government.

People were concerned for months about the lack of transparency because such a secretive process could end up elevating candidates that would not serve the best interests of the entire city.

And that's exactly what happened.



In a democracy we elect people, and then we hold them accountable, publicly. What do you suggest, that citizens should do nothing when they think their representatives aren't doing their jobs? We should just sit back and say nothing until the next election?

Voting is only one small part of a democracy. Being an engaged citizen involves more than just voting every year or two or four.



Social media is ubiquitous in the political life in America. If elected officials are being unnecessarily secretive or are making decisions that could harm people, then the people should use a tool such as social media to let their voices be heard.

Plus, there's no guarantee that elected officials will even respond to public pushback, either, so the idea that a social media campaign can "overrule" government decisions makes no sense.



Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Holding government accountable, even when it involves leaked information, is the duty of every citizen. Issuing this kind of bizarre and vague warning serves no purpose other than put the watchdog under suspicion, rather than discussing the facts that have been exposed.



Not really a "big" difference, if any difference at all. Plus I'm not sure where you came up with your definition of "leaking," but it's spurious at best, and implies ulterior or selfish motives for anyone who leaks information. Sure, leaks can sometimes be motivated by malice, but in this case, it's precisely the opposite.

Would you like to talk about Martin Murphy and Rick Finn? Or are you only interested in talking about a blogger?



From the beginning of the city manager search process, Geneva Believer has called out city council for a lack of transparency, every step of the way. City councilors responded by assuring everyone that the process was fair and that it would result in the best available city manager for Geneva.

Do you think that, after a nationwide search, Rick Finn and Martin Murphy are actually the two best possible candidates for the job?



The posting of the job was very public.

The fact that the committee was being selected was, indeed, "secret information," as the city didn't publicly announce they were even forming a committee until the committee's roster was nearly completed.



What are you talking about?

Nobody has ever suggested that.



Again, this philosophy of "they were elected, let them do their job" is another way of saying "the public shouldn't be holding elected officials accountable except by voting and they need to shut up." That's not participatory democracy. In fact, I'd offer that it's completely undemocratic.



I'll give you credit for trying very hard to paint this whole situation as some kind of scary and undemocratic hijacking of a city government process.

But really, why are you talking so much about a blog and about whisteblowing and leaking and everything EXCEPT the candidates in the city manager search?

Two candidates were named, and both have a long list of serious allegations in their past. The front runner, Rick Finn, left every city manager job he has ever held under a cloud of controversy, with accusations of harassment, discrimination, misconduct and racism throughout his career, including lawsuits. Martin Murphy had accusations of financial misconduct and was forced to resign his last city manager job in Oneonta due to allegations of mistreatment of city employees.

Hiring a city manager with the credentials of Finn or Murphy is not okay for Geneva.

Matt Horn was city manager for nine years, and even though I'm not a fan of Horn, he was never accused of mistreating employees, discrimination, or racism.

As far as the idea that Geneva Believer was "campaigning" for Sage Gerling, I suggest you read the blog articles in the order they were written.

There were three candidates in the running: Finn, Murphy and Sage Gerling. Yes, I voiced my support and encouraged others to voice their support for Sage, too. But mostly because the other two candidates were absolutely awful compared to Gerling, but also because Gerling is an excellent candidate and as the interim manager, should have been considered the front-runner the moment she submitted her application.

Here is a link to all of Geneva Believer's coverage of the city manager search since April:

Geneva City Manager Search on Geneva Believer

Thank you for your reply. It speaks volumes.

did the process in 2009 release the names of the candidates prior to any selection?





by your own statement it appears you had reservations about all 3 candidates

if you felt the candidates lacked experience then do another search

No, but the process in 2009 included several community forums (in 2018, there were none) and the formation of the community search committee was announced within 20 days of the prior city manager announcing his departure (in 2018, the formation of the committee wasn't announced for nearly 4 months).

Neither process was transparent by any measure, but 2009 was more transparent by definition.

You can learn more here:

Mayor and Councilors Lie, Say "No" (Again) to Transparency




You only quoted the first half of the sentence I wrote. Here's the full sentence:

"Yes, I voiced my support and encouraged others to voice their support for Sage, too. But mostly because the other two candidates were absolutely awful compared to Gerling, but also because Gerling is an excellent candidate and as the interim manager, should have been considered the front-runner the moment she submitted her application."

I had "reservations" about the process, but not about Gerling's experience.

Another search would be costly and time-consuming, and City Council already made it clear back in May that delaying the search by even a couple of weeks was not an option and that the search needed to be complete by late summer.

I guess my biggest issue is that how do you know any of these things? Where do you get your information and how do you know any of it is true? You tell people in your blog all of these things, but how do know any of it is factual? I have read your blog and I'm all for accountability, but it has to be truthful. I know for a fact that some info you've put in there, simply isn't true. It's an issue when you don't post comments from people who disagree with you. I am glad you've decided to come on this forum and post. That's the problem with lefties, no one is allowed to have a different opinion.

It depends on what "information" you're talking about. The information related to the city manager search was obtained from credible inside sources and I'm 100% certain of the veracity. I take my responsibility to provide factual information very seriously, and if I'm posting information from unnamed sources, I vet those sources accordingly.



Then give me examples. Send me a message with evidence that whatever I'm saying is not true. I have posted corrections on the blog in the past when I've found out that I provided inaccurate information, and I will continue to do so.

Otherwise, you're just calling me a liar without any evidence, which doesn't help anyone who is interested in the pursuit of truth.



That's not true. I delete comments on my Facebook page ONLY when they call into question my motives and ignore the article that's been posted. I don't approve comments on the blog that fit the same criteria.

For example, "I think the city manager process has been sufficiently transparent" would be an example of an opposing viewpoint that I would allow.

"You are only posting this story because you want attention and you are a lefty" would be deleted or not approved.

And before anyone cries foul about "free speech," you don't have the freedom to say whatever you want on any privately owned website. I have put hours and hours of my own time and resources into writing the blog and maintaining the Facebook page, and if people want to question my character and make claims that I have an "agenda," they can do so somewhere else on the internet.



If you say "the city manager search is not transparent" and I respond by saying "you don't know what you're talking about and you have an agenda," that is not a "different opinion." That's an ad hominem attack that ignores and distracts readers from the issue being discussed.

And Geneva Believer has readers and supporters across the political spectrum, including many people that would be considered "righties," because issues of misconduct in government is something that resonates with people of all political and social backgrounds.

Fair enough, I'll be getting back to you. Thank you for taking the time to answer back. I really do appreciate what you do. I don't agree with majority of what's said, but I can respect different opinions. Thank you.

You're welcome and thanks for the discussion. Look forward to hearing from you.

the names should not have been 'leaked'or released

and what would be the cost?

--- 'credible inside sources' ----

was this 'credible inside source' involved with executive council sessions?

if that is true should that person be facing charges or be removed from council for leaking confidential information?

(it is called executive session for a reason and not run home and tell everyone about confidential information)

if the information 'leaked' to you came from an executive session should you be questioned for revealing confidential information?

council members sign statements prior to being sworn into council stating they will not reveal confidential information

if a council member has revealed this confidential information then it is very possible that this council member has been 'leaking' confidential information since being sworn in (to other people) that could be even more serious on other topics of city government that should have remained private

remember you want 'transperancy'