By Kristine Thomas
“The council is under stress,” wrote Mt. Angel Mayor Tom Bauman in an email to city attorney Paul Elsner on April 4. “The sooner they recognize the role of policy maker and what are administrative roles the better.”
“Staff is placed in very difficult situations with the recent request for information,” he wrote. “Isn’t the contract with the administrator being violated by the meddling?”
At issue was Councilor Mike Donohue’s request for information on a grievance filed against him by a city employee.
Councilor Rick Schiedler responded to Bauman’s email.
“I am a little confused,” Schiedler wrote to city administrator Jim Hunt, city attorney and fellow city councilors, but not addressing the email to the mayor. ”I do not feel that our council is in turmoil. If this is in regards to Mike’s email asking for public records about the grievance filed against him I think that he is entitled to this information and I do not see how he has been meddling.”
The email exchange is an example of the disparate views over the role of a city councilor on the current Mt. Angel City Council.
“Our authority as a council is only during the time we meet,” Bauman said. “We are just ‘Joe Citizen’ until the next meeting.”
Bauman said in Mt. Angel’s city government, the city administrator takes care of the day-to-day operations and the council sets policy that is carried out by the city administrator and staff.
“Our authority is to work as a group and to resolve things,” Bauman said.
Schiedler, who is unopposed in the Nov. 4 election for mayor, said he sees the mayor’s role as a liaison between the staff and the council.
“As mayor, I would make it a priority to bring all important issues to the council for their discussion and decision, if required, because as our City Charter states ‘…..all powers of the CITY shall be vested in the council’,” he said.
Elsner, responding to Bauman’s April email, said his general sense is the staff should not be placed in the position of having to deal with individual councilor inquiries “unless the council as a whole (acting as a governing body) believes that this type of individual councilor conduct is somehow appropriate.”
Elsner was asked to voice his opinion on the role of a city councilor again this month when Donohue, Schiedler and Ray Eder co-authored a letter published in a local paper Sept. 3.
In the letter, which was also given to the city council and Hunt at the Sept. 2 meeting, the men reinstated why they believe the city administrator’s contract should have been terminated at the special council meeting Aug. 25. The three contend that Hunt illegally taped a January conversation with them in his office.
Elsner stated the letter itself “certainly seems to fly in the face of several subsections of the council’s current rules” including subsection 2.1 “…abiding by all decisions of the council;” 2.2 “personal attacks;” and 4.1 (A) “working with the staff as a team.”
Elsner said the three councilors may want to reconsider whether they want the statement to be included in the council records.
“It potentially subjects them to censure, (see, subsection 3.4 of the council rules,)” he wrote.
“My sense is that the three councilors had a special meeting called by the mayor and their motion to terminate Jim was considered by the council after a full discussion and was defeated. That should end the matter,” Elsner wrote.
After the Aug. 25 meeting, attorney Jim Van Ness, who represents Donohue, Eder and Schiedler, told Elsner his impression was the three councilors “… just wanted their day in court…,” holding the special meeting met that expectation, and that this was the end of the matter.
“I suggested to Jim (Van Ness) – again, after the meeting – that attacks on staff were ultimately antithetical to the best interests of the city, a point with which he agreed,” Elsner wrote. “I then asked him to counsel his clients as to the negative repercussions that can befall the city when these public displays of discord continue.
“He graciously agreed with that point as well and said he would do as I had asked in light of the council vote.”
As city councilors, Elsner wrote, there is an obligation on the part of all councilors – individually and collectively – to the entity they represent – the city.
Councilors, he explained, are akin to a board of directors of any private or publicly traded corporation.
Their obligation extends not just to themselves and their political agenda, not just to the “shareholders” (citizens), but also to the entity itself.
“That larger consideration and discussion about those larger interests at play has not been happening, at least not to any large extent to which we know,” Elsner wrote.
It’s normal for serious discussions of differences on city matters, but those matters should occur in public and before the council, he said.
However, “those discussions have to be done without obvious rancor or antipathy because to do otherwise impacts the city,” he said. “They must be done with civility and with the interests of the city as paramount. Once a decision on an issue has been reached, everyone should step in line and support it, or at least not attempt to undermine it later on.”
Donohue requested Hunt include the city attorney’s bill in the council packets. He said he was disappointed when he had to ask more than once.
“I would like to see the council put a policy in place on how we request the city attorney,” he said.
“The City Council has little or no control on why or when the attorney is contacted. When looking at the attorney statements, there are times when the city is contacting the attorney when we could be looking in other directions such as League of Oregon Cities.”
Donohue also stated he would like to see changes made so that “when a councilor requests information, they get it. I would like to see the mayor and the council work together,” Donohue said.
“I would like us as a council to bring in League of Oregon Cities to help facilitate meetings so we can get back on track as a council so we can work together and actually accomplish goals.”
Ray Eder said he believes the “city staff other than Jim Hunt is running the city along with the mayor.”
Bauman said in his opinion the 2006 election brought councilors aboard who do not “respect the separation between policy making and administration.
“Besides the lack of respect for the separation of roles of policy making and administration, the lack of training and distrust has become growing issues,” Bauman wrote.
To date, Bauman said, none of the councilors elected in 2006 – Donohue, Schiedler and Eder – have reported attending training classes by League of Oregon Cities or Mid-Valley Council of Governments.
“To me the overriding issue is one of trust,” Bauman wrote. “The trust with the public and between the council is the essence of governing.
“In my reading of the City Council Rules Section 4.1 A – councilors are to work with staff within a spirit of mutual respect and support. Also in 4.1 B council members commit to avoid influencing the Administrator concerning personnel matters and in 4.1 C limit contacts so as not to influence, to interfere, or to undermine the authority or to prevent the full Council from having the benefit of any information. So how many violations have occurred?,” Bauman wrote.
“For Mr. Van Ness to claim that Mr. Hunt violated a single City Council Rule seems petty. His clients apparently were making disparaging remarks about many people. All three stand together in this charade. I am appalled by the double standard. The tenor of the whole (Aug. 25) meeting was wrong to me.”
Councilor Shari Riedman was disappointed the debate continued about Hunt’s job status after the council voted Aug. 25.
“Our Council Rules are clear,” she said. “Councilors should conduct themselves ‘so as to bring credit upon the government of the city by respecting the rule of law, ensuring non-discriminatory delivery of public services, keeping informed concerning matters coming before the Council and abiding by all decisions of the Council, whether or not the member voted on the prevailing side.’”
