At Monday's Common Council meeting the council rejected Acting Chief Patrick McMahon as permanent chief. The council voted along party lines to reject McMahon. All democrats voted to reject the Acting Chief citing a faulty process and residency requirements.
9 comments:
I guess your editorial supporting the Chief carries no juice, Ed.
A simple travesty by the democratic common council in not appointing Acting Police Chief Patrick McMahon to the permanent Police Chief position. This was nothing more than opposing the mayor and flexing their power to do their will, but not the will of people.
What happened last night at the council meeting was absurd. In short:
1. Charter specifically states,"Mayor Shall appoint all directors, and the Council shall confirm" Note the words, "shall"
2. Atty Lynch explained the role of the confirmation was to "confirm" the candidate is qualified. Qualified....not about the process.
3. All four candidates were deemed "qualified" by a professional assessment center.
4. Two candidates, McMahon and Sneed were "vetted" for 15 months in their acting roles.
5. Two community groups interviewed the candidates.
I ask my fellow colleagues, what is not open about the described process? No, Councilman Streeto-you are not able to review the quesitons/answers-all information obtained by the Assessment Center is proprietary. The Mayor by direction of the Charter did not have to even put forth a process.
6. Director of Personnel Debra Milardo provided a written and oral history of appointments my former mayors--with no process.
7. The Mayor reminded the council that the majority of them changed a job description to allow of a candidate of their choice to be "appointed". One councilman tried to appoint a director on the eve of an election--former Mayor Serra--at least the council stopped that "no process" appointment.
8. If the other three candidates were brought forward for appointment would the same "lack of process" standard" still hold?
9. Why did all the dems meet to discuss their decision...no politics remember-yet it was a "group think" decision and nothing but politics. No one denied the Acting-Chief was qualified.
10. This was the same council that approved McMahon for Deputy chief--correct Councilman Klattenberg?
Two good men, two men who have led the police department through extrodinary times were persecuted.
The Acting-Chief has done a stellar job. No City employee, no candidate should be attacked as he was last night. Why would any decent candidate apply to work in the PD or to be Chief??
Lastly, residency. The bottom line-what makes you a "resident"...I proposed last night we, all members of the council, have a sign-in sheet as to how many nights we sleep in our homes, each and every month? Perhaps the ordinance should be clarified-5 of 7 days a week, except for an allowabl1 days for vacation twice annually defines residency-matter resolved. The acting-chief meets the definition as written....move on.
On a personal note, I appologize to the Acting-Chief-the behavior exhibited last night is not at all representative of the residents of Middletown.
The PD should NOT be about politics and the appointment was all about polics. In the end, it is the community who lost.
Deborah Kleckowski
Member of the Common Council
So if you are going to have a major operation do you go to a doctor who tests well and lives in town or to one who has a known performance record and lives out of town. I too am ashamed of being registered as a democrat. Is it not suprising that the Democratic council suddenly became "pure and lily white" since there is a Republican mayor.
I am a democrat and am disappointed at the decision and behavior of some members of this council that is recounted here.
It would make a great statement if everyone who is disgusted went and unregistered themselves as democrats this week. it's one of the easiest ways that we can show how unacceptable this behavior is. I know a few people who have already done it this morning.
Deb Kleckowski, you just got my vote. I am a life long Democrat who is registered in this town as an independent. I will not be voting for any of the City Council Democrats in November of 2011. I am truly appalled at their immature and grotesque treatment of a professional. Especially when the Democrats knew before the meeting which way they were going to vote, they still questioned and berated the Acting Police Chief for hours. Embarrassing. Not only did they waste the peoples time, they ignored the countless number of people from most segments of the city who supported the candidate. Is he qualified? Yes. Do your job Democratic council members, listen to the people and your charter.
I'm not clear why we're stressing "shall." Even the staunchest proponents of a restricted role for the council in the confirmation process make clear the council can reject an obviously unsuitable candidate. I've yet to hear anyone argue we have NO discretion but MUST confirm EVERY appointment. Why would the charter mandate a redundant act?
The charter provision at issue provides broad powers to the council to create and contour the parameters of the various city departments. I believe it makes no sense to suggest that the first sentence of a provision would provide such broad powers to the council, while the second reduces them to an entirely ceremonial role.
But "ceremonial" seems to be how confirmation is defined by the republican caucus. Obviously, we don't need to determine qualifications--the personnnel department does that far more thoroughly and professionally than a group of part time elected amateurs could do. In consequence, the interpretation stressed would reduce our role to an ornamental one.
But to be ornamental (sort of a municipal cheerleading squad) the council would have to be peppy, high spirited, entertaining, and visually attractive--and with a two or maybe three exceptions, I'd suggest we don't qualify:
http://www.cityofmiddletown.com/Council/council_information.htm
I'm not a potted plant or a parade float. If you put something in front of me, I'm going to exercise judgment. The charter requires I do so.
I recognize the republican position is that the council exceeded its authority by declining to simply confirm a qualified candidate. Well, gang, if you really feel that's true, here's how to prove it.
Have the acting chief file a quo warranto suit, or possibly a suit for mandamus or injunctive relief. (A quo warranto suit is an action brought by a citizen to determine the right to hold a given office; it could apply to the head of a municipal department (check out STATE EX REL GASKI V. BASILE, 174 CT 36 (1977)). Given that two members of the majority at least have publicly noted the Acting Chief is qualified, it should be simplicity to establish that he should have been confirmed if that was the only question the council was actually empowered to decide. It isn't. But that's what you'd do if you were convinced you were right.
I'm certain there are public spirited lawyers active in republican circles who are willing to handle this matter pro bono. In fact, I note that while the mayor is limited to being mayor as his "primary" occupation, there is nothing in the charter that I could find which would bar him from handling a single case on a pro bono basis.
If not, I'll commit to reimbursing the Acting Chief for his attorneys' fees, up to 20,000 (which is twice what this case should cost), provided appropriate time sheets are submitted detailing time expended in detail at an appropriate hourly rate. I'll admit I don't speak for my caucus but only for myself on this one--but you'd only need to persuade one more.
In my opinion our role is to exercise independent judgment. If you truly feel I'm wrong, you'll get a ruling from the courts. Should be able to do it quickly, on stipulated facts, in a matter of weeks.
Slight clarification--I should have said I'd commit to VOTING to reimburse the Acting Chief for his attorneys' fees (memo to self: don't post late at night). If anyone wants to make fun of me for the misstatement--feel free. To be honest, folks, I couldn't afford it out of pocket.
I'd meant to add "if he prevails"--but that one's my bad at this point. I'll commit to voting for an appropriation reimbursing him either way.
A point not raised here but for broader discussion, along the same lines: is there anything we can do about these interminable questions of "authority"?
They seem to crop up with monotonous frequency.
It would seem negotiation between the mayor and council, the mayor and the BOE, the council and the unions, the unions and the BOE has become impossible. Under the circumstances, I'm going to suggest that the court decisions be sought as rapidly as possible, frankly. These problems aren't going away--they're getting worse.
And if you're a citizen (or a union member) reading this, and are going to argue this represents a failure of leadership on all levels, I'd suggest you're probably right. I'll apologize for my own role in the failure, such as it is....
I'm not certain what can be done. I'd suggest that a number of people in city government on both sides of the aisle need to change their respective styles. Perhaps we can have a symposium at some point? Frankly, it might be too late to walk back a lot of this stuff....
Post a Comment