An Issue of Confidence
The ordinance that created the position of City Administrator and the office of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is Ordinance 01-02. It was signed by Mayor Fritz Kahl on March 21, 2001. Under Section Three (Removal From Office) is the following statement: "The City Administrator shall serve at the will of the City Council and may be removed by majority vote of the City Council. The City Council may designate some qualified person to act in the absence of/or disability of the City Administrator. Alternatively, in the absence of a City Administrator, the Mayor shall serve as the Chief Administrative Officer."
Sauceda's employment agreement from February 2005 and modified in August 2005 states the duties of the job as: "The duties of the Employee are set forth in City of Marfa Ordinance 01-02, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein for all purposes." Sauceda's latest contract has not been seen yet, though I'm sure it is based on the original contract. The important point is that Sauceda's employment contract clearly states that Ordinance 01-02 is part of the employment agreement.
As I have mentioned before, Chapter 22 of the Local Government Code is a very important law for Type A General Law cities such as Marfa. The last part of this code describes removing officers. Section 22.071 gives cities the power to create other officer positions such as Marfa's Chief Administrative Officer. Section 22.077 discusses removal of municipal officers:
Sec. 22.077. REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
(a) The governing body of the municipality may remove a municipal officer for incompetency, corruption, misconduct, or malfeasance in office after providing the officer with due notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(b) If the governing body lacks confidence in a municipal officer appointed by the governing body, the governing body may remove the officer at any time. The removal is effective only if two-thirds of the elected aldermen vote in favor of a resolution declaring the lack of confidence.
Part (b) makes it clear that city council can remove an officer at any time for lack of confidence if two-thirds vote in favor of a resolution declaring lack of confidence.
There is a slight discrepancy between the city ordinance and the state law. Marfa's ordinance says that the administrator can be removed by a majority vote of council (three of five). The state law says that two-thirds (four of five) must vote in favor of a resolution declaring no confidence. It is in the best interests of all parties that this discrepancy be resolved before the meeting to determine the number of votes needed to remove an officer and the need for a resolution or not.
Sauceda's employment agreement from February 2005 and modified in August 2005 states the duties of the job as: "The duties of the Employee are set forth in City of Marfa Ordinance 01-02, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein for all purposes." Sauceda's latest contract has not been seen yet, though I'm sure it is based on the original contract. The important point is that Sauceda's employment contract clearly states that Ordinance 01-02 is part of the employment agreement.
As I have mentioned before, Chapter 22 of the Local Government Code is a very important law for Type A General Law cities such as Marfa. The last part of this code describes removing officers. Section 22.071 gives cities the power to create other officer positions such as Marfa's Chief Administrative Officer. Section 22.077 discusses removal of municipal officers:
Sec. 22.077. REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
(a) The governing body of the municipality may remove a municipal officer for incompetency, corruption, misconduct, or malfeasance in office after providing the officer with due notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(b) If the governing body lacks confidence in a municipal officer appointed by the governing body, the governing body may remove the officer at any time. The removal is effective only if two-thirds of the elected aldermen vote in favor of a resolution declaring the lack of confidence.
Part (b) makes it clear that city council can remove an officer at any time for lack of confidence if two-thirds vote in favor of a resolution declaring lack of confidence.
There is a slight discrepancy between the city ordinance and the state law. Marfa's ordinance says that the administrator can be removed by a majority vote of council (three of five). The state law says that two-thirds (four of five) must vote in favor of a resolution declaring no confidence. It is in the best interests of all parties that this discrepancy be resolved before the meeting to determine the number of votes needed to remove an officer and the need for a resolution or not.
posted by RobC at 9:18 AM
6 Comments:
Believe when long-time City Secretary left the position, Kahl and Council decided that the job was more complicated than they knew. I believe that they, at that time, decided that they needed a professional person who knew more about city government and state law than they did, and created the position of City Administrator, in part, to pay more than the City Secretary was earning. Remember, at that time there was a mayor and 2 council members. Perhaps this is the root of the discrepancy you are pointing out. Best of my memory.
Perhaps. You are right that Ordinance 01-02 was written for a different situation. I think that the new council may want to reconsider some of the wording of that ordinance. It has been better than nothing! There is a minor difference between the current state law and what was written six years ago. I point it out because the city should see which version takes precedence in order that business is done properly no matter what they do. I've heard more than one person wish we had the old system of one mayor and two council members!
Believe Greg Hudson was City Attorney then, I would almost bet that State Law was changed after that ord. was written.
A lot of people didn't like Mayor Kahl's ideas and griped about them. The consenses back then was that 5 heads were better than 2, and that more ideas discussed would result in better gov't. Oh, well.
Yeah. I was one who held that belief when it became apparent that the mayor was managing city government out of his hip pocket.
Three more council members looked like smart business until we saw who the town chose to represent us. And the mayor continued to manage out of his hip pocket. It took a very nasty city meeting to air this descrepency which resulted in a rebuke of the mayor by council.
Whoo! I didn't know I was missing monkey business at city hall back then!
Not monkey business like has been going on recently! Back then, with just 3 people, you can imagine the problems potentially and actually with quorum. And there was lots of griping, but nearly non-existant attendance by the public. Plus they weren't dealing with the issues that council must deal with now, either in terms of money or long term implications for the future of the city. Just a different time.
<< Home