Employees can be, and are, terminated for misconduct or poor job performance, although the latter is less common. In both cases there are a slew of opportunities to impose lesser sanctions, identify ways to improve performance, and execute appeal rights if management goes forward with termination (or suspensions for that matter). The point being that employees have opportunities to avoid termination and be heard if they, and their representative, believe they are being treated unfairly.
I bring this up because in reviewing the IVI-IPO questionnaires (thanks to Joe Moore's FUD campaign against Brian White) I noticed a couple of responses by Moore that concern me.
7. Will you vote for an ordinance mandating that the City contest unemployment claims by former employees who were fired for cause?
8. Will you vote for an ordinance forbidding the City to hire or contract the services of anyone previously fired for cause from the City or any other unit of government?
Joe responded "No" to both questions without explanation. I'd sure like to know why he is willing to allow employees terminated for cause to collect unemployment or be hired. If they were terminated for cause then they either were non-performers or they were misbehaving. Why should taxpayers pay for people who can't/won't do the job, or are violating the terms of their employment.
This question's response also got my attention;
12. Will you or have you accepted campaign donations from people or businesses seeking zoning changes in your ward?
I have an open, transparent and community-based process with respect to zoning issues in my ward and have an independent committee Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee that makes recommendations on all zoning and land use issues that come before me, recommendations that I accept nearly 90% of the time. Nonetheless, to avoid any concern that my zoning decisions could be influenced, I generally avoid accepting campaign contributions from individuals who have pending zoning matters. (emphasis in bold underlined is mine)
I'd like to know why Joe is comfortable accepting any money from individuals with pending zoning matters in front of him. You would think after the 2007 election he'd be inclined to err on the side of discretion. He doesn't say that he has accepted such donations this time (we'd have to check the reports at the Board of Elections) but he equivocates instead. The use of "generally" suggests the door will open if you know the super sekrit password. Apparently there are contributors he just can't say 'no' to.