________________________________________________________________________________________
By Pauline Masson –
It’ll be a whole new ballgame when the newly elected aldermen raise their right hands in the April 18 board meeting. But don’t expect too much change on the let’s tell the aldermen how to be aldermen contest.
At last Tuesday’s meeting, a resolution to approve a proposed Handbook for Newly Elected Officials sent the discussion careening like a bad hit ball bouncing along the baseline.
Eventually a 6-0 unanimous vote sent the controversial rule book back to committee. But before that, a free for all of sliders and sinkers played out.
City Administrator Steve Roth took a turn at bat. He swung from the hip, as they say, with an emotional lament, not previously witnessed in his seven years in Pacific, over the way he felt he had been treated on social media platforms over his role in the controversial guide book.
In defense of his role, he said, remarks on social media were rediculous and not true. In eighteen years as a city administrator he has never had a complaint against a elected official but, he said, if it happened he would have an obligation to review that.
“We do have a role, I understand,” he said. “A complaint against an elected official is a very serious matter. If it happens we then would have an obligation to review that and we would take that obligation whether the handbook is in place or not.”
What social media said was that the city administrator does not have role in complaints about an alderman’s speech or arguing style. Where is it written that paid staff has authority to review – and ask aldermen to try – a complaint about an elected official. If he receives a complaint about an alderman the city administrator should tell the complainer to bring their complaint to the elected body either in writing or before the board in an open meeting.
Roth concluded that he would no longer be silent when he felt maligned on social media.
“I’m tired of it and I’m not going stand being accused of it and let it stand without being addressed,” he said.
The social media comments were aimed at the language in the handbook giving a member of the city staff a role in disciplining elected officials. I stand by my opinion. Any city administrator would be out of line to ask a board of aldermen to hold a trial on a complaint about a fellow alderman because the city administrator thought the complaint met some kind of unstated litmus test.
Alderman Jill Pigg (former alderman and former mayor), who chaired the administrative committee review of the controversial handbook offered new food for thought. She said that while she had mixed feelings about the handbook, she was in favor of throwing the unintiated into the ocean to be fed to the sharks.
“You should have come to this board knowing the basics of government,” she said. “If you mess up, the board (she didn’t say city administrator) has the right to file a complaint in that process. Bottom line, use your head when you’re up here and do what you’re really supposed to do.”
In a final punt, she opined that, “Part of the fun is figuring it out.”
Then came the knuckle ball. Alderman James Cleeve, instigator of the handbook, defended the intent and the need of a guidebook, which were meant to help new aldermen because he had undergone an uncertain beginning.
“I’m schooled. I know what government is. I know how this should work and all that good stuff,” he said. “I don’t feel I was effective all the first three or four months being up here.” Then he added a conditional caveat.
“I personally don’t believe part three was ever meant to fry us against the wall and stop us from doing things up here,” he said.
No criticism of Mr. Cleeve’s personal sensibilities intended here, but social media did not question the intent of the handbook. I believe Mr. Cleeve’s intent was good. What was challenged was the actual language of Part III that said aldermen could be removed from office if the city administrator reviewed complaints about them in the course of their duties and brought the complaint to the full board.
It’s not about Mr. Cleeve. It’s not about Mr. Roth. It’s about whether or not the elected aldermen are free to fulfill their roles and their obligations to their costituents without fear of reprisal beause someone doesn’t think they are polite enough – and the city administrator agrees.
What all this emotional refusal to clean up the language of this document and leave the impeachment process to the possible misdeeds of future aldermen tells us, is that there is no predicting where the Handbook for New Elected officials will land or what shape it will be in when it gets there. A newly formed Administrative Committee will have an opportunity to parse the document and decide exactly what it is that the city will be telling incoming aldermen.
The City of Washington hands its aldermen a copy of the Missouri Municipal League Guide to City Government and posts a copy on its web page to illustrate how the city operates there.
From this reporters point of view, the Code of Ethics section of the proposed Pacific rule book has the unintentional spin of a highflying foul in attempting to dictate how aldermen can say what they want to say.
Ethics rules in government – at all levels of government – are not about speech: they are about money. Elected officials in congress, state governments, county boards and city councils are not allowed to accept pay in the form of money or expensive gifts in the line of their duties. There are specific laws about that.
But the manual that was presented to aldermen included a set of rules, titled code of ethics, against free speech and there is also a specific written law against that. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” which restrains state, county and city legislators.
This handbook is asking our aldermen to approve, and sign their names that they agree to, a set of rules that violates their free speech and the free speech of future aldermen.
What made this section of the proposed rule book even more egregious was that it specifically authorized the city administrator as the prosecutor of the elected officials if their discussions in city meetings or on social media posts can be determined (by the city administrator) to be too harassing, malicious, or if they go too far interruping their fellow aldermen.
Harassing is a subjective word. Malicious is a subjective word. Only an alderman can decide whether he or she is being harassed or whether their opponent’s words were so malicious they should be kicked out of the game.
From this blogger’s point of view, the Mr. Roth can cry us a river and tender hearted Mr. Cleeve can rub gallons of balm into the wound, but there is nothing in American government that empowers the hired staff to prosecute elected officials. Impeachment is the only way to remove an aldermen from office and only other aldermen can Impeach. And the paid staff, the city administrator, should have no role in determining whether or not impeachment should be initiated.
This attempt to control our elected aldermen makes a mockery of the electoral process and of government in Pacific.
The city administrator has already persuaded a previous board to approve a document that identifies the police chief and collector – both elected by the voters – as city employees under his oversight.
Where the handbook might end is anybody’s guess. In the words of the inimitable Yogi Berra: It aint’ over til it over. Boards of aldermen are not immune from silly action. Remember a former board of aldermen here once landed us in losing court battle with a 6-0 vote to give the cemetery records away.
Keep your eye on the ball.
The handbook got out of hand! I’m not sure what Alderman Cleeve wanted when he suggested this handbook, but I don’t think this was it.
And even though Ms Pigg may have had mixed feelings about the handbook. From the meetings I watched she opposed any opposition to the direction the book took. She seemed to be spearheading the direction.
But regardless the book needs to be thrown out. As should the making of the Chief and Collector employees as well.
I think after Roths little speech I think what James Cleeve was trying to say that before accusing Roth or anyone of anything, he would need to see proof not just a he said she said situation, which kind of sounded like this COC could be against elected officials.
I think we have a good BOA and they shouldn’t let this COC and words said on media or the past meetings do anything to stop progress. This Board has been 2 years in the making. The Aldermen that dropped out and the Mayor that was voted out. And now the last Alderman to go. People in Pacific want change and that should be what is concentrated on.
My thoughts are that the original request was for a ‘ how to, go ask here’ outline of how the City operates. How or why the Staff got so involved is a mystery to me, unless one believes this was a direct power grab. There was no need for anything past part I.
Some language in Parts II and III had useful guidance such as ” public officials should be responsive to the citizens”, strangely missing in the revised version from the clowntorney.
Nothing past part one was needed nor was any of it’s contents asked to be included.
As far as the Marshal and Collector are ’employees’, admin stated this was so they could be guaranteed benefits and health insurance, what a line of crap.
If I acted like the admin did in a public forum in the Municipality where I worked for over 30 yrs, I would have been immediately suspended with out pay and would be facing a termination hearing. He owes the BOA, staff and citizens a written apology.
“Alderman James Cleeve, instigator of the handbook”
From the Webster dictionary: “a person who stirs up public feelings especially of discontent”
I’ve got to say I was surprised by the usage of language here. Especially when I called you (Pauline) to discuss the “guide” with you this past Thursday and didn’t get a return call. But… no worries. We all have opinions and you are absolutely entitled to yours (and I DO respect your opinion, even if I don’t agree sometimes). I just sent you an email from January 30, 2023 with the guide I submitted. You’ll see NO Code of Conduct in it… I never intended the guide to do more than give someone new a little head start and links to help them become effective sooner, nothing more.
Instigator? Really? How about Initiator? OK. I’ll move on.
James, Tough as that might seem to you, the handbook did stir up public feelings of discontent. In our first conversation on this issue I believe I said to you that the guide book — really only part III of the guide book — was insane. I do think it is insane for aldermen to cede authority to the city administrator. I realize that what you were really requesting was a sort of playbook, a guide to get through the process of government. But that’s not what you received. No one is questioning your motives. I don’t even question Steve Roth’s motives. He is trying to build and protect his career. But I don’t agree with his interpretation of how much power the city administrator’s job gives him. As you said to me recently, “Let me be clear,” the city administrator should not be fielding complaints about aldermen and deciding which complaints rise to the level of possible of removal from office. Only the elected aldermen have that authority. Your desire to salve Steve Roth’s wounds might have been well intentioned but it was a public validation of his position and illustrated your unwillingness to stand up when the going gets tough. I didn’t return your call because I didn’t think it was healthy to have a conversation when I was in a state of rage. Part III of this handbook needs to be thrown out and you – as the instigator – need to be tough enough to do. that. You want to chide me about the word ‘instigator’ when you are throwing away your duly elected power. Words are my tools and I try to use the right ones for the job at hand. I want to repeat what I said to you in my very first response to your delicate sensibilities, “You need to toughen up.”
Pauline, did the “Let me be clear” in my email come across as angry? I was not at all. I was replying to your comment that implied I wanted to do something when I wanted to be sure you knew I had no intention of doing so. One of the reasons I wanted to talk. Emails/texts can be taken in all kinds of ways they were never intended (including these comments – I’ve been warned before not to engage in the back and forth).
As I have said before, I am very tough. What I think people may misinterpret is me trying to be nice first. Once I determine being nice doesn’t work on an issue or with someone, then I know not to waste more time being nice, but I always lead with nice. I won’t argue the point of the guide stirring up discontent, but stating I was the instigator implies I have been stirring the pot. That is my issue with it… But, if you think I have been, then I guess it’s all good.
“Part III of this handbook needs to be thrown out and you – as the instigator – need to be tough enough to do that.” There you go again with that word (must be because you know I love it). Why do you think I was trying to get Part III separated? Once separated I could “save” the part I intended to use and vote down the part that didn’t make sense. I had to move it back to the Admin Committee to get it separated. I had already tried but there was no way Alderman Pigg and Alderman Presley were going to agree to that. A recent conversation with Alderman Presley has probably changed that. No matter, with the “new blood” taking their seats, I believe we will succeed in doing what is necessary.
I heard/read everyone’s comments on the guide. I have many of the same opinions. Sometimes we just need to have faith in someone to do the right thing or at least give me time to work and not assume the worst.
I did not think “Let me be clear,” was in anger when you said it and it was not in anger when I said it. It was an exclamation point !
I never thought you had the intention of including the Code of Conduct section in the handbook. I thought you allowed it to happen without a loud, public and unequivocal objection. You are a public figure now and everything you do and say and is subject to public understanding. You caved on this. When you try harder to please your opponents than to carry your message of the use, value and meaning — actual language not intent — of the handbook, you come across as uninitiated. Being nice is nice. But as a legislator it is way more important to be effective. You are in the right on the handbook debacle ! ! ! Your opponents are in the wrong ! ! ! Steve Roth is wrong when he laments that he has an unwanted role in disciplining aldermen. The only role he has in disciplining aldermen is the one you cede to him.
Nice is coming across as weak in the public arena. You ran on protest. You ran on disillusionment with City Hall’s unwillingness to hear what citizens were saying. We, your constituents, had every reason to believe that, if elected, you would have a visible agenda of good legislation. We did not expect all this nice-ness.
I think you’re a nice person with good motives. I wish you’d learn to play the game.
Situations like this are what happens when you have elected officials in place who won by popularity and not for their knowledge. If you run for a position in political office you should not need a “guide” or “playbook”.
This is also a massive overreach by the city administrator. While Mr. Roth is a nice guy, it may be time to look for a new administrator. It seems Mr. Roths views of his position have been misguided by past Mayors and Alderman. It is sad to see the way this city government has been ran for the last few years. Elected officials running on false promises. City Administrators over reaching their responsibilities. A city attorney while knowledgeable is asleep at the wheel.
DO BETTER, BE BETTER! Stop with the popularity contest and elect officials that make the changes the city needs!
John, if someone knowledgeable would run that wasn’t part of the problem, that would help. I ran because I saw a problem and keeping the same people in office was the problem. Everyone will have the opportunity to kick me out next April, if I choose to run again… use your vote wisely and get involved. I was begging people to run for the last election and we still only had one seat that had more than one candidate. No choice isn’t a choice.
It appears as though the people that should have been helping Aldermen Cleeve, with his questions and concerns were stonewalling him or giving him bad advise. The Missouri Municipal League already has the information available for the most part that they are looking for. Why weren’t the new aldermen directed there? Seems as though the administration want to keep them in the dark, and under control.
‘They’ like to keep the puppet strings tight. I think a simple out line of the flow of information
between BOA, committees and staff, with some where do we start things out thrown in, is all that was originally needed and wanted.
The Municipal League has much information, but it should be read with a lot of local flavor added in, this apparently was intentionally held back from some of the newbies.