I mentioned to a very strong Moak supporter and campaign worker during the election that Mr. Moak would get rid of Nick Cracknell. I was told that that was absolutely untrue and that Mr. Moak wanted everyone to stay on.
Tom Ryan reported on January 6th that “Moak has informed councilors by letter that he is trying to see if Nick will be a team player.” (Mr. Ryan also points out that if Nick Cracknell leaves at the end of January, he would get a two month severance pay, but he would not get any severance pay if he were to take the “four-month trial contract.”)
In the article in the Newburyport Daily, Jan 16, 2002, it stated:
“Mayor John Moak said he would not reappoint Cracknell before his contract expire Jan 31 and instead has offered to wait three months before making a long-term decision on Cracknell’s future, according to a letter Moak sent to Cracknell Jan.12.”
(See earlier post for additional information.)
John Moak has been in City Hall (as the City Clerk) the entire time that Nick Cracknell has been Planning Director, and should have a very clear idea whether he would keep him on or not.
If Mr. Moak really wanted Nick Cracknell to stay on as Planning Director, he would have re-appointed him right away. But I think Tom Ryan and the Daily New’s assumption that “Cracknell’s days may be numbered” is correct.
By offering Nick Cracknell a four-month trial contract, John Moak looks like “the good guy.” He can truthfully say that he asked Nick Cracknell to stay. But it seems pretty clear that John Moak would like this very talented planning director to leave.
For me this is not an example of decisive and thoughtful leadership. A proactive and farsighted Planning Director does not come along very often. For me the apparent plan to ease Mr. Cracknell out is unfortunate and disingenuous politics.
Mary Eaton, Newburyport