Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs in happier days.Relations between the governing body and the mayor seem to be getting more fractious than ever. If in fact Dan's big rumor turns out to be true (the one about the mayor being ready to fire the city administrator), the council will be eligible for a big-time tit for tat, as there is language in the charter that says they can disapprove such action by a five-vote majority.
The mayor has already vetoed legislation on bid thresholds that the council passed and the council has mustered the five votes to override her veto. Now she is vetoing the override, but the council is going to over-override the veto, or something like that.
Only one aspect of city operations is affected by the spat over bid thresholds, but as far as having a tug-of-war over the person in day-to-day charge of all city operations, well, that will certainly make Jay Jefferson Cooke's day.
Here's what the City Charter says:
Article III, 3.5 b) The mayor may remove a department head or the city administrator whenever, in his discretion, the public interest so requires; and any such removal shall take effect 10 days after the mayor files notice of removal with the city clerk unless prior thereto the council shall at a regular or special meeting disapprove of such removal by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the entire membership. In the event of such resolution of disapproval, the affected officer shall be restored to his office without loss of pay.
Never mind that the 1969 charter assumes that all officeholders will be male, you get the picture. The charter never contemplated having a city administrator who might be going out on maternity leave, either. The council has asked the mayor to explain who would be in charge if the city administrator took maternity leave, but the mayor did not appear Monday as invited to answer the question. The council then extended the invitation to next Monday's regular meeting.
If instead the mayor really wants to fire the city administrator and the council takes action to disapprove of such action, the question of who will be sitting at the city administrator's desk in City Hall Annex remains.
You may now step outside and scream. If it's too cold, just tear your hair.
--Bernice
Override ? There are 3 council members who can vote smart...the others are either goose stepping with Jerry or the Mayor..don't see it happening.
ReplyDelete"This Hot Mess Mayor and all her erratic drama has been brought to you by the uneducated party line voters of Plainfield". We hope you enjoyed our programming.
Now...maybe the next election we won't see Mapp, Storch, McWilliams and Williams with the tag-line "VOTE DEMOCRAT"..maybe they too will start saying -- VOTE FOR X, Y , Z". In other words....VOTE SMART.
LETS FIND OUT WHY SHE WAS TERMINATED
ReplyDeleteAND MISS BERNICE WHAT BENEFITS DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS RECIEVE
Our Taxes are sure to go down now with all the cuts in staff.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Council Members voting to side with the Mayor on this one enjoy what time they have left in office. The Mayor will go and so will any Council Member that does not over-rider her termination of the City Administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat possibly could be "in the public interest" that warrants her termination? The only interest Sharon has is her own interest. It would have been in the Public Interest to terminate Hellwig when she had the opportunity to do so. What could the City Administrator have possibly done that could be worse than soliciting a male prostitute on City time, with city equipment by someone that oversees our law enforcement agency?
My only guess is that she refused to wear red clothing.
Bottom Line - It is all going to cost the taxpayers in the long run because "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings".
To 10:54am - she is being terminated because she competes with the mayor. If you go to the council meetings you would have seen for yourself a competent administrator who will SUPPORT the mayor, but will not LIE for her. That is the difference between Ms. Taylor and "I'll get back to you" Dashield.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor could address her termination in executive session to the council. There are two sides to every story. Also, the City just appointed a Director of Administration and Finance at 110k. He can be the acting city administrator temporarily as Mrs. Taylor was. Also, we just hired an extremely qualified CFO. Lets not pre-judge the circumstances before the facts are known.
ReplyDeleteTo 3:34pm- You obviously are not involved with the city or go to Council Meetings or you would know we have an extremely qualified City Administrator.
ReplyDeleteAlso, are you aware that the extremely qualified CFO is part time and will be working less than 20 hours a week for a total of 85K
Wish I could work from home part time for 85k. Talking bout cushy.
ReplyDeleteCan we recall Sharon now?? Please!!?? We deserve better!!
ReplyDeleteHow can any elected executive override a legislative veto? They voted, you vetoed, they overrode your veto. It's over. Period.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:35 pm:
ReplyDeleteYour posting is just a little confused. The council voted, the mayor vetoed, the council overrode the veto. The mayor can't veto an override of her veto--it just doesn't make any sense and ignores the entire process of legislating. I don't know who is advising her on procedure, but this is just crazy. You said, "They voted, you vetoed, they overrode your veto. It's over. Period." And you were absolutely correct!