Why Did Tucson Mayor George Miller Suddenly Turn Against The City Manager? By Dave Devine DESPITE THE TUCSON City Council's failure to fire City Manager Michael Brown last Monday, July 1, many around City Hall believe it just delayed the inevitable. It's simply a matter of when, and how much it will cost the taxpayer, they believe. But many at City Hall are still wondering why this sudden push to replace Brown. They especially question why Tucson Mayor George Miller suddenly became so vocal in his opposition to Brown. Since Brown was hired in 1993, Miller has been one of his strongest supporters. At the periodic private sessions held by the council to review Brown's job performance, Miller was usually silent or had only praise for Brown. So why would he want to dump Brown now? City Hall insiders tell The Weekly it has to do with Miller's far-fetched scheme to build an enhanced treatment facility for CAP water. This questionable technology has never been used on the massive scale that would be needed in Tucson. The cost estimate for the facility ranges from $300 to $500 million. But Miller wants to spend that amount, on top of the $100-million cost of the existing, but currently idle, CAP treatment plant. Before it was shut down two years ago, the now-idle plant failed to make the water palatable for local customers, who also complained the treated water generally wrecked havoc with old pipes. But Miller apparently feels building yet another plant--and an extremely expensive, experimental one at that--is the only solution to Tucson's CAP dilemma. Last October the City Council decided to pursue the idea and ordered Brown to get cracking. Brown returned on May 20 with contracts costing almost $800,000, and expected to reach $1 million later, for the necessary preliminary technical and financial services. At that time he outlined three options for the City Council to consider regarding the proposed new treatment plant. The first option was to hire private consulting firms to perform the required preliminary work. The second was to order city staff do the work. The third option was to put the whole thing off. Brown wrote of this final option: "When this process started, Proposition 200 (the anti-CAP initiative) had not been voted on and approved by the voters. Mayor and Council may want to reconsider their previous decision concerning an enhanced treatment facility, in view of the decision to recharge and recover very significant quantities of CAP water and groundwater." Privately, according to City Hall sources, Miller was furious at this thought. Even though Brown recommended the council vote to proceed with hiring private consulting firms to do the work, apparently Miller believed he'd been betrayed. At the May meeting, the City Council failed to act on any of the options, instead sending the whole issue to its Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee for further study. Based on that lack of action by the Council, it appears Miller decided Brown had to go. Miller has a history of dealing viciously with people who don't follow his lead on those few issues he considers important. He gets mad, and then he tries to get even. In 1992, after former City Manager Tom Wilson was forced to resign by a majority of the council despite Miller's vehement objections, Miller asked the state Attorney General's Office to investigate the five council members involved for allegedly violating the state's Open Meeting law. Last year, when City Councilwoman Molly McKasson endorsed Proposition 200 and the voter initiative passed overwhelmingly, Miller forced McKasson out of her City Hall offices. A few weeks ago, the spite-filled behavior Miller has shown in the past emerged once again. It appears he decided Michael Brown had to go because Brown had dared to outline an alternative to Miller's proposal. That, of course, is Brown's job, but Miller wouldn't tolerate it. There are many other reasons why some in City Hall have wanted Brown out. These include abusive behavior toward his staff, his assumption of policy-making powers from the City Council, and his withholding information from them. Critics also gripe about his hiring of weak and ineffective employees, such as the director of Tucson Water, Kent McClain. Another charge against Brown is his strong support for a very aggressive annexation program. But Brown has his defenders. They cite his improvements to the city's budget process, his push to upgrade the city's computer system, and his enhancement of training opportunities for employees. They also refer to his project-based management system and the drive for excellence he's brought to the job. These people also charge that any policy-making role Brown has played is only the result of the City Council's failure to act. Plus, they add, most of the council members, including Miller, prefer that Brown make these decisions. That way they won't be held responsible for them at election time. There has also been talk around City Hall that the move to oust Brown was driven in part by the desire of some council members to hand-pick Brown's successor. "You owe me your job," it seems, would be a common theme of these politicians' discussions with the new city manager. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. One thing appears certain, however: George Miller will continue to push the enhanced treatment facility. Even though Proposition 200 pointed out the recharge direction most voters wanted to take, Miller wants to ignore them. If that means getting rid of Michael Brown to get his way, it's just a price that has to be paid.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth