June 7, 2017 at 4:01 p.m.
Investigation of DPW working conditions moves to City Council
Alderpersons hurl expletives at each other while arguing over jurisdiction
Investigation of DPW working conditions moves to City Council
Tempers flared after committee members couldn't agree on which committee - public works or finance - has jurisdiction over the matter.
Finance committee chairman Mark Pelletier, who also serves on the public works committee, insisted that the finance panel should have addressed the matter before public works.
Board chairman Tom Gleason said he put the discussion/action item on the public works committee's agenda following the departure of street superintendent Tony Gilman and street maintenance worker Jeremy Walker on May 22. Both men indicated their departures were due in part to alleged "workplace culture" issues in the department.
"(This) would lead one to believe that some type of investigation should be maybe undertaken," Gleason said. "And what I was proposing here was, as a committee, forward this to the full council for some type of investigation."
Alderman Tom Kelly asked if the matter should first go to the finance committee, and Gleason replied that the matter would have to be brought to the full council sooner or later.
The finance committee met Tuesday but the only matter related to the departure of Gilman and Walker on the posted agenda was to set the salary range for their replacements.
Alderman Steve Sauer said he spoke to city attorney Carrie Miljevich earlier Monday and said she recommended that the council address the matter.
"She thought it was completely reasonable to do a six-month review (of Public Works Director Tim Kingman) in closed session," Sauer said.
He then made a motion that the full council conduct a six-month review of Kingman in closed session to gauge how well he has met the goals set out in a December closed session meeting. Gleason seconded the motion so discussion could continue.
Alderperson Sherrie Belliveau asked for specific information about the complaints coming out of public works.
"Some of us who are not privy, who do not chair these committees, who don't know about these complaints, we were promised that we would be able to see these complaints so that we could bring it back to the full council and discuss this, and that never happened," Belliveau said. "How many times are we going to beat this around without hashing out some progress? Because, quite frankly, I'm tired of being accused of not doing my job when I don't know what the hell is going on."
"I think that is kind of one of the reasons I put this on here is to kind of light a fire underneath whoever it needs to be lit under to get something going," Gleason replied.
Belliveau then claimed that only Sauer and Gleason know what's going on in public works and the rest of the council is in the dark.
"All you have to do is read in the newspaper, and you can be kind of kept informed on what's going on," Gleason responded.
"OK, I'll call (expletive deleted) on that, and you can even print that one," Pelletier interjected, looking in the direction of the media present. "First of all, this is not in the ability of this committee to do that, it is not jurisdiction."
"I'm not saying it is..." Gleason tried to get in before Pelletier continued.
"You cannot put it on here and have a legal motion to have something put on council. You cannot put a dog park on, you can't put something for water on," Pelletier said.
"This is the public works committee," Sauer said.
"That's right," Pelletier shot back. "And who has the jurisdiction and oversees all employment?"
Sauer argued that the board of public works has oversight authority over the public works director while finance oversees wages, per city ordinance.
"I think it has to go somewhere," Belliveau observed.
Gleason repeated that the reason he wanted the matter on the agenda was to prompt some kind of action. If that's the case, Pelletier said someone needs to make a formal request to have the matter put on the finance committee agenda.
"Up until now, nobody (has)," he said.
"I'm going to call (expletive deleted) on that," Belliveau shot back. "Because I have asked you several times that this should be on finance, and it hasn't been."
Alderman Alex Young also wrote a letter to both Pelletier and Mayor Dick Johns dated May 23 asking that the alleged workplace culture matter be placed on the agendas for the next finance committee and City Council meetings.
Sauer then suggested that the committee vote on the motion. Belliveau, Gleason and Sauer voted "yes" while Pelletier and alderman George Kirby voted "no."
Since the city didn't have an administrator in December to handle the employment matter, the responsibility of resolving the public works issues fell on Johns as the mayor, Belliveau argued.
"It has been preached to me forever that we can't know too much because we are the final judge and jury," she said. "So the more we know, we can't make those decision that we have to make."
Sauer reiterated that the matter will be addressed at council.
"But you're talking about a performance review," Belliveau observed.
"That's what the city attorney told me," Sauer replied.
Gleason said it will be up to the full council to decide what action will be taken.
"How are we going to decide what we're going to do right then and there?" Pelletier asked.
"To have a performance review, you have to have a format for a performance review," Belliveau pointed out.
Alderwoman Dawn Rog noted that the whole situation has changed since December.
"We just can't let it linger," Gleason commented.
Rog suggested interim city administrator Keith Kost review everything from the December meeting and summarize it for the council.
"That was the idea behind this, to kind of kick-start something to get done," Gleason said.
"I'm not saying that I don't agree with Steve, but I would like to hear (city attorney) Carrie (Miljevich) say that it has to be a performance review," Belliveau said.
Pelletier still insisted that the motion was out of order.
"You want to put it on next month's finance..." he started.
"We've taken the vote," Sauer cut him off. "The vote has occurred."
Gleason said the discussion was finished, the vote had been taken and the majority voted to send the matter to the full council.
When reached Tuesday morning for comment, Miljevich said she did talk to Sauer but denied recommending the council conduct a performance review of Kingman.
"I think a closed session discussion is warranted with the full council regarding an update as to the public works and related departments, but that discussion is not intended to be a six-month performance review of Tim Kingman," Miljevich said. "This is not for the council. A review of Tim Kingman - or any other department head for that matter - is the responsibility of the city administrator and the mayor."
Miljevich added that she contacted Sauer and he admitted "he got his verbiage wrong."
After Tuesday's finance committee meeting, Pelletier was asked why he didn't include Young's May 23 request for discussion of the problems in the public works department on the agenda for that meeting.
"I waited because I didn't know where to go with it," he said. "And to be honest with you, after last night's public works meeting, and the fact that it was brought forward through there, I am starting to question - for whatever reasons are beyond me - why the finance, wage and salary committee even has oversight of stuff like this anymore because people seem to have the ability to go around it at will."
Johns was then asked if the topic would be on Monday's City Council agenda.
"I don't know, I haven't even discussed it," Johns replied.
Pelletier said it would be on the July 6 finance committee agenda.
"I'm all for a six-month assessment by the council," he added. "I thought we were already supposed to (do that)."
Comments:
You must login to comment.