Problems evident at commission meeting
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
It was reported in the May 15 edition of the Valley Journal that I asked the mayor if the $10,388 in the “claims” represented the total taxpayer cost for settling the lawsuit filed by the previous city manager against the city.
What was not reported was the answer.
The mayor stated that the figure did not represent the total cost to settle but she was unaware of that total. After confirming the public had a right to know the amount, i.e. it was public information, she asked the city attorney for the answer since he conducted the negotiation to settle. His response was that he had not told his client and therefore could not answer the question. His client, the council, was sitting in front of him but apparently that exchange of public information had to occur in a closed portion of the meeting.
Later in the meeting, when the council was asked to explain the term, “incompatibility of office” as it appeared in Resolution 974 specifying a restriction on appointing an acting city manager, no member of the council could explain the term. Since the attorney drafted the resolution, the mayor asked him to explain the meaning. To that question, he responded that he did not offer legal advice during open meetings. So without an understanding of their own resolution, they appointed an employee with a full-time position to assume a second full-time position as acting city manager. Commissioner Morrison, who made the motion to appoint the acting manager, was unable to explain his own understanding of the law applied to this appointment.
These public meetings lead an observer to conclude there is something fundamentally wrong with the manner this council manages the affairs of the city.
Bob Fulton
Polson
