Adams, Roth Defend Ordinance That Makes Police Chief and Collector City Employees

By Pauline Masson

Does it really matter whether or not the police chief and city collector are city employees?

In an attempt to justify the ordinance that makes the elected police chief and collector city employees, subordinate to the city personnel manual, acting board president and mayor pro team Herb Adams gave a lengthy speech Tuesday night, saying  “This is for the public.” 

CORRECTION: In a 5-0 vote with one alderman absent, aldermen approved the ordinance at the Nov. 2 board meeting. Butch Frick, Herb Adams, Gregg Rahn, Drew Stotle and Jerry Eversmeyer voted to approve the ordinance. Andy Nemeth was not present. In an earlier post, I reported that alderman Jerry Eversmeyer voted against the ordinance. I watched the meeting on Facebook and misheard alderman Eversmeyer. It sounded to me that he said ‘no.’

At the close of the business portion of the meeting, Adams launched into a dissertation on what the ordinance actually did.

He said the only thing the ordinance changed was to establish benefits for the police chief and collector.

He added that as mayor pro term he had personally used the new ordinance to direct the city administrator to improve the benefits of all city employees by increasing their sick days by two days a year, their personal days by two days a year, and granting vacation to new employees after 90 days. This would mirror the benefits provided for the chief and collector.

“I did that,” he said.

No matter how well intentioned, or how popular, the idea of helping other employees might be, clearly he does not have the authority to do it. Neither an individual alderman, the acting president of the board, nor mayor pro team can increase employee benefits unilaterally. Only the full board of alderman can do that.

If someone does bring back an ordinances to increase the benefits and amend the budget to cover the cost, the ward two alderman only gets one vote and the mayor pro tem cannot vote at all unless there is a three-three tie among the aldermen.

I am confident that the acting mayor’s speech was an attempt to reassure the public that the controversial ordinance was an example of good government.  

But I have to tell you . . . as a reporter of 40-plus years, who has worked in 30 cities, I have never seen any government attempt to legislate authority of the paid staff over elected officials.

City administrator Steve Roth, who wrote the ordinance placing the elected chief and collector under the authority of the city personnel manual, and ultimately under his authority, also tried to justify the ordinance.

 In his report to the board of aldermen that was included in the meeting packet, Roth said. “The elected Collector and Marshal / Chief, in their capacity as full-time employees, must be bound by the same work rules that apply to other full-time employees. Their code of conduct must meet the basic City standard.”

That is his opinion but I am hard pressed to see how it is justified by law. Both the position of police chief and municipal tax collector are regulated by state statute. There are qualifications the must have and regulations they must meet.

Roth went on to tell aldermen that if he were put in a position of having direct supervision, or disciplinary authority over elected official it would put him it, “would be a direct conflict.” Huh? It is unclear what that even means.

And yet, the ordinance amends the personnel manual to include the two elected officials with all other city employees. Roth said if either did something wrong and it was reported he would act on it.

“I am, by code, the Personnel Officer for the City. In the event I receive a complaint about the conduct of an elected official, in their capacity as a full-time employee, I would have an obligation to act on that,” he said.

“With respect to disciplinary action, I do not have disciplinary authority over these elected positions, nor would I want that.” 

The personnel manual says otherwise. It says the city has the right to direct the operation and manage all manpower of each department. The city can take disciplinary action when an employee fails to follow any provisions outlined in the personnel manual. The city can reprimand any employee who violates personnel regulations and the reprimand becomes part of the individual’s personnel record.

The department head (city administrator) can discipline employees for unapproved absence.

The manual says when work habits, attitude, production or personal conduct falls below an acceptable standard, the employees are subject of disciplinary action of verbal or oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension or demotion.

 The ordinance clearly puts the two elected officials under the authority of the City personnel manual. Here is what the ordinance says:

“The Personnel Manual for the City of Pacific must be amended to make clear the employment status of the elected City Collector and elected City Marshal – Chief of Police of the City of Pacific.” 

“The conduct of the Marshal (and Collector) shall at all times be in conformance with the provisions of the Personnel Manual, or with other personnel rules and regulation that may be adopted for City employees. Violations of City work rules, policies and procedures shall be subject to disciplinary action as set forth in the Personnel Manual.”

I started this piece by asking if it matters whether or not the police chief and collector are city employees. Here’s what matters.

Both men, Mr. Roth and Mr. Adams say this ordinance is in the best interest of the City. But for this reporter, this overreach of authority and muddled attempt to justify it erodes the trust in government.

 It matters whether or not citizens trust government. 

How can the citizens trust government officials when clearly they don’t trust each other but enact a law with the stated purpose to exert control over other duly elected officials.