https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yaZBftMK7A
During the latest installment of “Ask Hizzoner” Mayor Mike talks about his relationship with the council (FF: 20:00). He touches on some interesting points;
• Strong Mayor form of government
• Transparency with the Council
• The role of the council and the executive branch and his position in those roles
One of the main roles as the mayor under this current charter is to be the city manager, and that is a simple task. He is in charge of the city employees (mostly the department directors). But the mayor seems to think he can be in charge of the council and their staff (bullying). He is not, though he has been very successful so far in turning the tide in his favor.
He also talks about how the city clerk and the city attorney were treated during the city administration debate by certain people who were spreading false information about what they were doing. I’m still confused by this defense. There was proof in an email from the city attorney of how they were going to try to stall the process. There is also the famous ‘stamp’ incident in which the city clerk claims he didn’t look at something he officially stamped. These are not falsehoods or lies, those are the facts. If the mayor and the citizens want to defend them and what they did in the process, I am all for that, but let’s base that defense on what was truly said and done. Otherwise it’s just another load of crap from the executive branch.
This is where the mayor goes into a rant about transparency between his office and the city council. He feels this transparency is important for the CITIZENS. Ironically he doesn’t share the same feelings about transparency when sharing details with the council or these same citizens, but he wants to require it of the council. What color is the kettle Mike?
This really ties in with the ‘threats’ of ethics violations towards councilor Stehly (or any councilor for that matter) that doesn’t fall in line with the administrations wishes. If the mayor can’t control city councilors he has his attorney threaten them with concocted ethics violations. And BTW, how are those violations coming along? Or are they only empty threats from a bully? This is why it would be important for the council to have their own attorney to advise them on ethics and other legislative matters. Sure we have a guy who uses a stamp with no recourse, a guy who makes budget number spread sheets once and awhile and another guy who is good at power point presentations but the council has no legal advisor. They had all three plus an attorney in Debra Owen, and guess what happened to her? Another victim of bullying from the executive branch.
I believe the mayor is using his city attorney to bully certain councilors into following his agenda. He believes he must control the city council by using council leadership (who don’t have a clue) and the city attorney. It has been evident who controls the city attorney when he acted as the mayor’s personal attorney during the mayor’s ethics hearing.
There is also this hypocrisy the mayor possess when it comes to being a city councilor. He claims to be a part of their group when breaking ties to get his way, but claims to not be a part of them when controversy arises over ethics. Which is it Mike? Either you are a part of the council all the way, or according to the charter simply a tie-breaker. If you were a true member of the council, you would attend all of their meetings (that’s part of that whole transparency thing you were bitching about) or not.
It’s simple, you run the operations of the city and the council is in charge of legislating it. Stop sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, because frankly threats of ethics violations run both ways. And if that happens, I suggest you hire your own personal attorney (like Stehly had to) to defend yourself against the accusations instead of wasting taxpayers money using your (personal) city attorney.
The city isn’t a business where you are the CEO that controls everything, it has checks and balances in place. Those balances must remain unfettered, otherwise, as Dan Daily famously said at a recent public input to the council, “You can go home now, we don’t need you anymore.”