Once again our faithful PRU readers have another chance to watch what passes for our local democracy in action! The City Council will be meeting tonight at City Hall beginning at 7:30 PM.
The most interesting item, not noted for discussion anywhere on the agenda (.pdf) nor specifically listed under the City Attorney's report, is likely to be discussion of the City Attorney's Authority of City Manager Memo (.pdf).
The memo is the result of "Park Ridge Mayor David Schmidt [having] asked for a legal opinion as to whether City Manager Jim Hock overstepped his authority by providing a laid-off city employee with a payment of $25,000 without receiving approval from the City Council." as recently reported in an article in one of the local rags. The article also notes the concern of 7th Ward Ald. Frank Wsol -- "Wsol pointed out that the City Council did not approve a contract with former Public Information Coordinator Aggie Stempniak for Stempniak to produce future copies of the city newsletter, The Spokesman. He has also sought a legal opinion on the matter."
What is most notably absent from the City Attorney's memo is any information regarding the City Manager's authority in reference to the $20,000 severance paid to our dearly departed Director of Economic Development Ms. Kim Uhlig -- presumably because neither Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, Ald. Wsol, nor anybody else asked about that.
All of the above and the absence of specific agenda placement, for discussion of the City Attorney's memo, should make the debate surrounding the City Manager's Employment Agreement (.pdf) all the more entertaining!
September 20, 2010
Another Monday Call To Order!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I can hardly wait to watch this video. The mayor will be full of hot gas about the horrible aldermen giving public money away to charities and he and the people wanting to get rid of Hock will be full of outrage about Hock daring to try and save money and going over his bounds of authority.
PRU:
The article said there were severance packages and payments to prevent unemploymebnt claims.
Did the Economics Dir. get more than a $20k payment? Did she get a separate severance too?
Anon@3:15 --
We don't know.
The Mayor does not appear to have been interested in asking about the extent of any payments received by Ms. Uhlig.
PRU:
If you are implying what I think you are implying that is very serious.
I read the article and the memo and it looks to me like Mr. Hock didn't follow the protocol for approving payments over $20k.
Anon@3:36 --
What we are implying and will now more clearly state is, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg seems overly concerned with the people involved in the issue, rather than mere policy and good government practices.
3:41:
On no!!! Say it ain't so!!! No wonder he and his "group" get along so well. Adjusting opinions on policy based on the people involved seems to be a big thing they have in common.
Yes, how dare the Mayor be concerned about proper procedure be followed when paying salaries.
He should be the ashamed one.
Anon@3:58 --
We feel the Mayor and the rest of the Council should be concerned with proper procedure.
However, if proper procedure were the only issue, then we have to question why the Mayor didn't ask about the issue Ald. Wsol asked about. And whether or not any other City employees received lovely parting gifts beyond the severance payments allowed for pursuant to the employee manual.
In this instance we find ourselves pleased with the work of our favorite local reporterette -- she examined and questioned the issue far more thoroughly than did the Mayor, Ald. Wsol, or anybody else on the Council.
3:46 PM,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
The only time it's not about the people involved is when it's about touting government aid for property losses.
PRU:
As I said I don't think Mr. Hock followed the protocols. He probably deserves to get his hand slapped even if he was doing it for good reasons.
That is all though. I don't think Mr. Hock should be fired. I can't speak to what motivated the Mayor to ask for the legal opinion.
it will be funny what he does with that legal opinion. After all, we all know what he did the last time he received a legal opinion.
Anyone know what happened at the meeting?
Anon@9:49 --
What are you interested in knowing, specifically?
Pru, I'm wondering in general. Miss the recaps you used to do.
Anon@10:01 --
Alright -- per our sources --
The various proclamations were well received.
Anne Lunde's history presentation was the answer for those seeking non-pharmaceutical sleep aids.
The City Attorney recommended the Council take action to approve the severance contracts or the City could be open to litigation. The Council seemed pissed off.
The City Manager's contract was approved by a vote of 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Sweeney, DiPietro).
More than ever, there is no love being lost between Mayor Schmidtzkrieg and Benedict Alderman Ryan.
The Pickwick theater received a unanimous vote for landmark designation, becoming the first historic building to receive the designation under the new historic preservation ordinance.
Discussion of the Taber report about the airport was deferred.
The Mayor's veto of community group contributions received sustaining votes on all but three line items -- Center of Concern, Maine Center for Mental Health, and Meals on Wheels.
We told ya so, Schmidtzkrieg!
Hope the above mini-recap satisfies your curiosity, Anon@10:01.
Thanks Pru.
Thank you Aldermen.
Watch the other blog bend over backwards to give the Mayor credit for this. The problem is he could have done it (same result) in a different way that involved leadership and avoided all this bitching and whining and childish behavior. I guess he must enjoy that.
Post a Comment