By Pauline Masson –
Aldermen will be asked to approve a strange resolution Tuesday evening that notifies them that they can be removed from office for doing their job in a way that the city administrator finds offensive.
The Code, disguised as a “Handbook for Newly Elected Aldermen,” was crafted by the city administrator and the mayor and reviewed in committee by a temporary alderman. It is on the agenda of Tuesday’s meeting as Resolution 2023-31.
And, aldermen who will be asked to approve this Code, which dictates the behavior of future elected aldermen, includes two temporary – appointed not elected aldermen – Sara Gendron and Jill Pigg – neither of which is seeking election to retain their seats.
What this document contains, along with an overview of city government, is a series of threats to future aldermen describing the kind of shenanigans that can get them removed from office, including the wrong tone of voice, arguing issues too vociferously, telling the public things the city administrator does not want them to know, and failing to support the policies approved by votes of their opponents.
And who is to be the primary judge of when aldermen face the threat of removal from office – the city administrator, who although he rents a sleeping apartment in Pacific his primary home is in New Haven, and the city attorney, who home is in Ballwin.
The 30-page Code is introduced under Steve Roth’s signature, telling aldermen that it includes a code of ethics for public officials.
Section III makes it clear that the code will be enforced.
Titled “Compliance and Enforcement,” this section of the Code details what conduct is expected of members of the city Board of Aldermen, boards and commissions. And any alderman who does not toe the line can be removed from office.
If an alderman uses social media in an inappropriate and/or malicious manner he or she may be removed from the board of aldermen.
If an alderman tells the public anything about city property he or she can be removed from office.
If an alderman argues with other aldermen or is disrespectful to other aldermen, he or she can be removed from office.
If anyone – anyone – makes a complaint in writing against an aldermen the city administrator and city attorney will review the complaint and upon determining “its legal sufficiency,” will ask the other five aldermen to determine the fate of the offender, which includes removal from office. And, it is written that aldermen are expected to act on the advice and recommendation of the city administrator.
If an alderman is uncertain about the proper interpretation of the city’s code of ethics, he or she is directed to seek clarification from the city administrator.
There is not a single word in this Code that requires the city administrator to be polite to city employees, board, commission or committee members, or that tells him to avoid being disrespectful to aldermen or citizens.
Where does this thinking come from?
It is mind boggling that an employee of the city – a city administrator – who hired by the board of aldermen and can be fired at will by four aldermen, would create a document that threatens elected aldermen of removal from office if they get a little too aggressive in arguing the issues that affect the citizens, or if they tell citizens something that the administrator does not want them to know.
This Code of Ethics is a portfolio with no authority. It is unenforceable, demeaning and downright insulting to individuals that the citizens elect to represent us – and who are being asked to approve it.
Make no mistake, folks, this code is a weapon crafted by the city administrator to control the duly elected aldermen.
This is the most egregious overreach that City Administrator Roth has perpetrated on the board of aldermen and ultimately the citizens.
He told aldermen not to raise questions or discuss proposed ordinances at the first reading of a bill – and they didn’t – which robbed the citizens of the prior notice of legislation that was coming our way that we had enjoyed under previous administrations.
He told aldermen not to question or engage citizens who filled out speaker cards and addressed the board – and they didn’t – which robbed the aldermen of the ability to seek clarifications and fully understand the why’s and wherefore of the citizens’ positions.
Don’t be surprised if this Code is approved Tuesday evening. He may have the four votes needed to make it official.
You can read it for yourself. The full Code can be downloaded in the Agenda of the April 4 Board of Aldermen meeting on the city’s web page.
It is totally crazy, so you can bet there will be 4 aldermen that vote for it. It shouldn’t be voted on until after the new board is in.
There is nothing else that can be said about it, but it is totally crazy!
The original intent was for a ‘how do we do things’ guide for newly elected and appointed officials.
Some where along the line a second section was added for a code of conduct which morphed into a “Code of Ethics”. An Alderman at a recent Administration Committee meetings asked that the two , ‘how to’ and ‘ethics’ be two distinct, separate booklets and was talked down.
So the vote as now stands will be all or nothing.
The first draft had wording like ‘ elected officials should be responsive to the citizens’ now strangely missing from the approved text.
There is a comment in the notes that this whole document would only be advisory, yeh , sure thing, until they have a target.
Tuesday night we shall see how tight the puppet strings are .
Henry, you are correct. I tried to get them separated. I want them to be changed as necessary and be able to be eliminated separately, if desired. I requested we start (with Mayor Filley) the Newly Elected Official Guide as a means for a person that didn’t have any experience in public office to jump start their time in office. I never intended it to include the Code of Conduct (and thought they would be separate). It took sooo long for me to figure everything out when I was elected last year. There really wasn’t a single place or a document in existence that laid it all out. I even had to call the day I was supposed to be sworn in to know if I was supposed to be at the meeting. No one even reached out to me from City Hall after I was elected to tell me anything… guess they assumed I knew what to do. Nope.
The citizens of Pacific have no one to blame but themselves. This proposal is too stupid for me to add anything further. Fire the City Administrator and City Attorney!
Sounds like a good Gestapo tactic to me. If the city administrator isn’t fired immediately it will be a disgrace to the city. Any attorney agreeing to such nonsense isn’t worth a hill of beans and should be dismissed. He is not representing the citizens of the city and leaving the city open to a costly lawsuit.
I don’t think you will print what I’d like to say, but let this suffice: This is bullsh*t. Who in the you-know-what does the city administrator think he is?
Time to find a new “city administrator”. Also, find a new attorney.
BOTH should have their primary residence in the city of Pacific. Why don’t we draw up THAT legislation?
This Resolution should be tabled until the new board is in place. If it does get pushed through, the new boards needs to repeal it as their first action. State statute dictates when and why an elected official can be removed from office.
The City Administrator has no authority over the Board of Aldermen. He is appointed by the Mayor and is approved by the board, however he answers to the Mayor. The City Clerk on the other hand is appointed by the Board of Aldermen.
Why have an election and alderman if everyone is there just to please the city administrator. If alderman pass this there is definitely a problem at city hall. Time for a new city administrator.