BAY
CITY March 20, 2010 --- The revolving door to the Bay City Council
chambers is working well.
On
March 9, Attorney Lois Albright administered the oath to newly-appointed
Councilor Robert Pollock, whom the Bay City Council appointed to replace
Ron Tewalt.
At
the end of the March 9 Council meeting, Councilor Amy Fullan resigned
from the Council because she is moving out of town. Fullan's seat
will be filled through another appointment.
The
Council, on a three/two vote, appointed John Gettman president of
the City Council, replacing Ron Tewalt in that position. The president
presides over Council meetings in the absence of the mayor, and has
authority to sign checks, also in the absence of the mayor. But that
appointment would be short lived.
Just
one week later, at a March 16 special meeting, the Council revoked
Gettman's appointment as Council president.
On
March 9, an extended discussion centering on employee wages and benefits
heated up as the discussion wore on late in the meeting. Councilor
Helen Wright suggested that the agenda item dealing with employee
wages and benefits be held over until all Council members are present,
or until after the budget has been completed.
City
Recorder Linda Dvorak said the City starts looking at employee wages
and benefits in May, and that the new pay schedule takes effect Aug.
1. Mayor Shaena Peterson commented that the Budget Committee would
probably offer some direction on wages and benefits.
Attorney
Albright suggested creation of an ad hoc committee consisting of Council
members and staff members to review the employee benefits package
and make recommendations. Peterson suggested assigning the task to
the Administrative Committee plus one or two staff members.
Councilor
Gettman pointed out that the current discussion related only to the
2010-2011 budget, and was "not about changing the (personnel) ordinance
to correct what appears to be things that we can't afford to pay for."
Because
of the economic situation, Gettman proposed to withhold employee step
increases, except for employees who had gotten certified, noting that
though the step increases were in the (personnel) ordinance, there
was no requirement that they be given.
Attorney
Albright viewed step increases as a benefit and cautioned that an
ordinance revision might be required if the step increases were to
be withheld.
Peterson
noted that the Council might not be in tune with Gettman's numbers,
and suggested that the numbers be fleshed out so they can be seen
by the Administrative Committee and by the Budget Committee.
Budget
Committee member Christine Clark urged that the figures be available
in time for the Budget Committee to consider.
Wright
suggested simply having the Budget Committee consider the matter instead
of having another committee.
Gettman
advised that, "we can't afford to support what (Linda's) going to
put into the budget. And that's the point. You ... cannot dig out
the information that we're talking about out of the budget document."
Peterson
commented that it's one thing to say we can't afford it, and another
to know what the numbers are.
"And
to know where the money is coming from," Gettman added.
Albright
again recommended a subcommittee to deal with the matter and present
a summary with options to the Council.
Wright
again urged not fixing something which isn't broken, and just "staying
where we are for a while until everything evens out and we know where
we're going with all the health insurance. ... It's gone on this long,
and we certainly have the money to do it."
Gettman
asked where the money was going to come from, to which Wright replied,
"where we've always gotten it from!"
Peterson
interjected that "I don't think we're getting anywhere with this,"
to which Gettman retorted, "That's right. Let's set it over until
whenever you want it done. ... I get so tired of putting figures together
for you, Shaena, that you ignore."
"Buster,
please don't blame Shaena!" Wright told Gettman.
Peterson
answered, "You know I do not ignore ... anyway, I do not see any numbers
attached to this agenda to consider. I have not seen it put before
this Council as a ..."
"You
haven't asked for any," Gettman interrupted.
...
Early
the following morning, Peterson, by e-mail, chided Gettman for berating
her at the meeting "for not paying attention to your UNPROVIDED numbers
on wages and benefits." Peterson suggested that Gettman did not seem
attentive to efficient use of resources, noting that "huge saving
(sic) are lost on a regular basis."
|
In
his response, which he copied to the other Council members, Gettman challenged
the mayor to "provide the Council with specific data where huge saving's
(sic) are lost on a regular basis due to the inefficient use of time,
materials and equipment by the City Recorder and staff, and the Public
Works Superintendent and staff." Gettman went on to advise the mayor of
selected items from Bay City Ordinance 639 regarding employee benefit
plans and salary schedules, a matter still awaiting action by the Council,
and ended with an accusation that the mayor's dissatisfaction with "anything
I do or have done" was the basis for her using her position to name herself
to two County-wide boards in his stead.
At
a special meeting March 16 to revisit council appointments, attended by
Councilors Pollock, Wright, Becky Smith and Terri Neimann, Peterson commented
on Gettman's assertion why she had replaced him on the Tillamook Bay Estuary
Board of Directors and the Tillamook Bay Watershed Council. Both boards,
Peterson said, had asked for his unappointment. They had problems dealing
with him, Peterson said, adding that she "had no idea what he was doing
with those boards because he never reported."
In
a further response to Gettman's charges, Peterson said she objected to
the use of jargon, such as something being "not sustainable," without
the numbers to back it up. Peterson said it is "not the mayor's responsibility
to develop policy, to develop numbers for staff ..." She added that Council
(members) should never direct staff, that Council members should "never
be so closely involved that one of our staff members goes to a Council
member or takes directions..."
Peterson
added that "In no way do I dislike John. He's given us a lot of valuable
things to think about, but in many instances he sent us down the wrong
path." But, she added, "if anyone felt that there was any truth in the
things he was saying in that e-mail, I am offended."
Councilor
Wright, who had asked for the special meeting, noted that Gettman "costs
us a lot of money. He takes up our staff time, he takes up David (Pace)'s
time, he takes up our attorney's time. Yes he's got a lot of great information
and stuff .... He's smart, but he's a pain in the rear."
Stating
that Gettman "needs to be stopped," Wright added that "I'm not the only
one that thinks this. The whole county thinks it. They're sick of him
at the meetings. ... they're just sick of him, because he stops progress."
Councilor
Smith said that Gettman's e-mail was "denigrating to the staff and the
mayor, and highly inappropriate." She added that Gettman has repeatedly
ignored the attorney's advice as to what is not appropriate to send by
e-mail, and "puts the City Council and the City in a very vulnerable position."
But,
she added, "I appreciate (Gettman's) research, and I appreciate his concern
about the City, and his passion for what's best for the City."
Attorney
Albright advised the Council that City business must not be done via e-mail.
E-mails discussing City business are public documents subject to recovery
upon demand, Albright advised, which can be enormously costly in terms
of staff time and budget. She cited the enormous cost to the City of Beaverton
to recover e-mails during a recent dispute with Nike. Albright cautioned
that any discussion which could lead to a decision must be done at a public
meeting, and not by e-mail.
Councilor
Pollock moved for reconsideration of Gettman's appointment as Council
president, which Councilor Wright seconded. Councilor Neimann, who had
moved to appoint Gettman council president, cast the sole vote against
reconsideration.
The
next two motions were adopted unanimously, the first to revoke Gettman's
appointment as Council president, and the second to appoint Councilor
Smith in his stead.
Gettman,
interviewed later, mentioned several unknowns which will affect current
and future budgets.
First,
he said, the City's group health insurance plan has a new contractor this
year. It is not yet known whether there will be any change in premiums.
But
a far greater problem involving PERS lurks in the fiscal year starting
in 2012. The PERS retirement fund has been severely battered because its
investments have lost value owing to the recent financial melt-down. The
full impact of that will probably hit in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
That
will put the City in a hole, he said, and Bay City's taxpayers, many of
whom are without jobs at this time, will have to pay for this.
Gettman,
who did not attend the March 16 special meeting, was having dinner with
his wife that evening, in celebration of his 84th birthday.
|
