Below you will see a legal opinion put on the agenda at Tuesdays council meeting to determine if the City Clerk had the right to appoint, swear in and give a pay raise to employees in his office during his absents. From what I’m reading there is already provisions for this sort of thing an agreement made between HR department and the union to handle just this very thing. The Clerk is aware of this because it was done in the past when he was gone for a couple of days.
Yes a few weeks is longer than a few days, but if there’s already been provisions made why was this done by the clerk? Who asked for this legal opinion? Corporation counsel doesn’t do this on his own either the mayor or council asked for it. Why? The mayor should know all about the understanding with the union and HR.
Its no secret the clerk wants a deputy clerk he tried to make council secretary the deputy clerk when he was first elected. At that time I wrote that he can’t just pick whom ever he pleases there is civil service testing to do and a panel that choose three names that the clerk can pick from. It was wrong when he tried to do it then and it’s wrong now. Frankly the understanding between the union, HR department and the clerk is wrong.
I’d like to think that all that needed to be done here was someone to go to the city charter and read it. Clearly that’s what corporation counsel did when writing this opinion. I would think the council could make what he did null and void and instruct the clerks office that they would be working under the agreement already in place. Sorry to say, but what do you expect to happen when one elected official(the mayor) in the past plays fast and loss with the city charter then all feel they have the right to.
When you go into a surgery with a cleaver instead of a scalpel it’s not going to be a pretty operation. Same thing was done in the city – cuts made with a cleaver instead of a scalpel. Very little thought given to the ( what if ) when things were cut just hack and chop away.




