Found Deceased CA - John Wooner, 57, city manager, Bakersfield, 14 May 2019

New Posts

The meeting to discuss his job performance, (not him missing but his performance in his role as mgr) sort of suggests to me that there must be people thinking that he has not been performing to someone's satisfaction or there were problems.
Otherwise, why would they hold the meeting even after he was found to be missing? If he was missing and in danger from the harm of others and they held this meeting I would be thinking "damn that is cold blooded"...
So, now, I am feeling that he may be missing on his own accord.
Too bad that there is no info about phone pings, gps coordinates from car, etc...
 
doodles1211 said:
The meeting to discuss his job performance, (not him missing but his performance in his role as mgr) sort of suggests to me that there must be people thinking that he has not been performing to someone's satisfaction or there were problems.
Otherwise, why would they hold the meeting even after he was found to be missing? If he was missing and in danger from the harm of others and they held this meeting I would be thinking "damn that is cold blooded"...
So, now, I am feeling that he may be missing on his own accord.
Too bad that there is no info about phone pings, gps coordinates from car, etc...
Click to expand...
Perhaps something has come to the surface that requires some immediate action.
 
Tripod said:
McFarland City Council to hold special meeting regarding missing city manager
Interesting article! I hope Mr. Wooner is OK.
Click to expand...

Performance reviews are usually given annually so was this really a "special meeting" held only for that purpose? Or is this a regular meeting where the review was discussed in closed session? The way the story is written seems to be sensationalized.

It's also curious that Bakersfield PD is investigating instead of the Kern County Sheriffs Department. I have to look, is the City of McFarland incorporated? My ex lived there for a short time when he worked at the prison, we exchanged kids there many years ago. Nothing much in McFarland, surprised to learn the CM makes that kind of money.
 
rosesfromangels said:
It certainly would appear so. No one meets to discuss someones performance when they are missing...unless something significant is awry. I'd be interested to know if the city attorney is in that meeting.

Amateur opinion and speculation
Click to expand...

Closed session meetings have to comply with the Brown Act in terms of why the public is not privy to the information being disclosed. Legal counsel is present at 99.9% of all closed session meetings.

Sort of sounds like the City Manager may have known something was coming down the pike? Hope he is ok.
 
I can understand a special meeting for a disappearance such as this. They would need to decide who to take over the day to day duties of Mr. Wooner, among other things. And calling in professionals to do an audit, should be on the list. It is just standard good practice. I was in banking for decades, and for awhile this was what I did.
 
doodles1211 said:
The meeting to discuss his job performance, (not him missing but his performance in his role as mgr) sort of suggests to me that there must be people thinking that he has not been performing to someone's satisfaction or there were problems.
Otherwise, why would they hold the meeting even after he was found to be missing? If he was missing and in danger from the harm of others and they held this meeting I would be thinking "damn that is cold blooded"...
So, now, I am feeling that he may be missing on his own accord.
Too bad that there is no info about phone pings, gps coordinates from car, etc...
Click to expand...

I got this answer from my hubby who has personal knowledge of these things as this is the area he works in and has his Masters in.

It is irregular and questionably illegal under the Brown Act to hold a performance evaluation in a special meeting but due to executive session descriptor limitations, the session was not for the actual performance evaluation but to assure continuity of executive presence is assured for the city. Under California Law, every governmental agency must have an executive to be responsible for the day to day operations and all they were doing was assuring compliance with the law.
 
Dartagnan said:
I got this answer from my hubby who has personal knowledge of these things as this is the area he works in and has his Masters in.

It is irregular and questionably illegal under the Brown Act to hold a performance evaluation in a special meeting but due to executive session descriptor limitations, the session was not for the actual performance evaluation but to assure continuity of executive presence is assured for the city. Under California Law, every governmental agency must have an executive to be responsible for the day to day operations and all they were doing was assuring compliance with the law.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, your hubby sounds incredibly knowledgeable on these things. So, basically, if I have this correct, they held the meeting to see who was in charge until Mr. Wooner returns or until there is an outcome to him being missing?
 
For everyone’s knowledge, if you ever take over a position where money is handled or accounting books are involved, insist on an audit before you touch one thing!

It is called CYA and is a necessity! No one truly knows who has had access to money, deposits, or the books. Don’t put yourself in the position to ever have a person point their finger at you to blame you for an irregularity that occurred before you took over. The person you are following may have the best reputation, be on the job for years, very reliable, all those positive assets. But, if there is something crooked in the books, do you want to take the fall?

From personal experience thirty years ago, I learned this most valuable lesson. Had no idea that I needed to request an audit in a new position in the same company. Since it was a promotion, I was familiar with how the company ran. They asked me to do a light check of the books. Duh, the books did not come out correctly!

The auditors were called in over the weekend. They came up with the same errors I had found. That is when the auditors told me to insist on an audit in a new position so I always started with a clean slate and balanced books. Fortunately, this occurred days before my start date. The person leaving was still there, could not explain the errors, so it was dropped. It was not a major sum of money. You can tell I was not an accounting major or I should have known this.

****No accusation intended as to why John Wooner is missing.****
 
doodles1211 said:
Ahhhh, your hubby sounds incredibly knowledgeable on these things. So, basically, if I have this correct, they held the meeting to see who was in charge until Mr. Wooner returns or until there is an outcome to him being missing?
Click to expand...
Thank you and yes, you are correct and they decided to take no action at this time, pending his hopeful return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 4,033 (members: 205, guests: 3,828)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
3,828
Total visitors
4,033
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,460
Messages
17,969,207
Members
228,773
Latest member
OccasionalMallard
Back
Top