Oct. 27, 2009
Accusations, Assertions, Reasoning Flies During Scorching Debate
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Declaring that Huntington City Council speaks through “resolutions, ordinances and orders,” councilman Jim Ritter decried what he called a “deal worked out between the Mayor, Our Attorney (Scott McClure) and Judge Jane Hustead,” which was in his words determined by McClure’s “nose counting” during an executive session.
“You cannot change your mind [with] a behind closed doors nose count,” Ritter said, as he introduced a resolution which would make the opinion shifts legal.
However, the resolution as prepared appeared awkwardly worded according to at-large councilman Steve Williams. The resolution as written merely asked that the August 2009 vote to NOT approve the same offer of settlement be repeated. Instead, Williams asked that the vote be to “affirm” the settlement of Eastham v. City of Huntington.
“I have no problem confirming what was voted on in August,” Williams said, adding, “I have different information now.”
The information came from a packet distributed to council members during the second executive session in which two additional law suits against the city were discussed. City Attorney McClure indicated that the packet included an assessment, possibly prepared by the Human Resource Office, on the potential impact to application of the residency settlement to impairment of one fourth to one third of emergency personnel hired AFTER specific dates.
Based on the emergency personnel data --- which had also been an issue when Mayor Felinton invoked an order for employees to comply by December 15. 2006 --- Williams altered his vote due to the possibility of losing police and fire personnel depending upon the judge’s choice of dates. He wanted to uphold the charter but not revert to a wild west circumstance before the at risk personnel were hired.
Actually, the same issue confronted the 2006 council which voted 6-5 in favor of not extending the December deadline for providing proof of residency. Using a July 1, 2002 cut off [in 2006] the city would have likely lost 16 police officers, 18 firefighters and 17 members of the street department.
Following that meeting, then Mayor Felinton told HNN:
HNN: Do you see any alternative to the firings on Friday?
MAYOR FELINTON: It will probably be Monday morning . There’s no extension. The lack of response [by employee’s to provide proof of residency ] legally has to be seen as a proof of non-residency and thus I’m forced to terminate those who do not comply… I just hope the numbers of people who brought in compliance come up as we get closer to the deadline.
HNN: Do you see a court challenge if you have to start terminating people?
MAYOR FELINTON: Sure, but I want to clarify that we have been fully in compliance with the ordinance . The affidavit itself is proof of residency. Upon information and belief that somebody may be out of compliance, we do investigate. What I see this, as the resolution introduced at the prior meeting by Mr. Ritter is being asked to investigate everybody and go back to 2002. It’s going a little bit above and beyond what the ordinance requires. From the [certified] letters we sent out, its going a little bit beyond the resolution by asking for multiple forms of ID. People need to be compliant and that’s the bottom line. I don’t think everybody was being reasonable on council.
(For the 2006 story, click here: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/061212-rutheford-council.html)
The Court Order entered Monday, Oct. 26 (the order was signed by the judge on Oct. 21, 2009) heavily relies upon “defendants [City of Huntington] lack of diligence” in the enforcement of the residency requirement after July 1, 2002.
“People who were newly employed or appointed by the City of Huntington after July 1, 2002 had reasonable grounds to believe Huntington’s residency requirement would NOT be enforced. Third-parties also had reasonable grounds to believe Huntington’s residence requirements would not be enforced,” Judge Hustead wrote. (Page 11 of Order)
Asserting a legal doctrine of “latches,” the judge declared that the city could not enforce the requirement on those employees due to its own “acts and omissions, acts of Huntington’s employees and appointees and acts of interested third-parties confirm the defendants [city] were not diligent in asserting their rights and disregarded or neglected Huntington’s residency requirements.” (Page 12 of Order)
Judge Hustead wrote that employees and appointees “justifiably incurred living expenses and established lives for themselves and their families outside of the Huntington city limits… [and would now] be prejudiced should Huntington’s residency requirements be enforced.” (Order Page 12)
PASSIONATELY STEVE WILLIAMS EXPLAINS HIS CHANGE OF MIND REASONING
Returning to the settlement order, Steve Williams prefaced his remarks by stating “it is our responsibility to uphold the charter to the best of our skill and judgment.”
Revealing his reason for switching his vote, he told council members , the administration and viewers, that based on the residency survey in the packet AT WORST 57 police officers would be terminated. “I am not willing to risk that,” Williams said, adding that by taking his oath of office he “did not check my mind, experience and ability to analyze” repercussions.”
The councilman said that if a cutoff date after 2007 was used, then, the city would lose 12 police officers and 13 firefighters.
By voting to accept the settlement and preclude drastic law enforcement and safety shortages, “I’m [still] supporting the charter because the language says we [must] create a safe place to life. [And] I will do everything in my power to make sure our citizens are safe.”
His statement shifted the parliamentary maneuvering and name calling… for some.
Councilman Houck who had strongly argued that Robert’s Rules would be violated by voting stepped back and said, “I am upset with the way it [the settlement agreement] took place.” He then challenged council members to “get off the residency kick and move the city forward.”
Like Houck, Rebecka Thacker did not alter her vote, but she did ask for better communication to council members “when something this serious” is decided.
Ritter expressed a compliment to former public works director Dr. Wayne Pollard. Dr. Pollard stepped down when he determined he would not move into the city. “Pollard had the integrity not to lie. Other [employees] lied [by signing the employment documents],” Ritter concluded.
Ms. Jackson intervened about the number of employees who would be included in the false swearing accusation of Ritter. “Some of the 57 [police officers] probably were hired before Judge O’Hanlon struck it [the residency requirement] down.” (Editor’s Note: In a prior complaint, Judge O’Hanlon enjoined the city from enforcement of the requirement because it had not been equally and diligently enforced. O’Hanlon removed the injunction under the assertion that the city would begin diligently enforcing the requirement.)
Vice chairperson Mark Bates --- the other member who changed his mind --- had kept mostly out of the exchanges between Ritter, Insco, Williams , McClure and Houck spoke briefly before the vote reminding that the newly elected council members (such as himself) had “inherited” the residency issue and “it needs to be resolved.”
Obviously, the intent of most of council and the administration appeared to be letting the new date be the line in the sand for enforcement, as earlier lines of demarcation had been soiled by ambiguities from previous administrations.
Long time council observer Dee Everett Fullerton stated , “the murky waters have really come up tonight” and prior to the vote added, “It keeps getting deeper and darker. I’m sorry for each and every one who votes to uphold [the court order].”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Accusations, Assertions, Reasoning Flies During Scorching Debate
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Declaring that Huntington City Council speaks through “resolutions, ordinances and orders,” councilman Jim Ritter decried what he called a “deal worked out between the Mayor, Our Attorney (Scott McClure) and Judge Jane Hustead,” which was in his words determined by McClure’s “nose counting” during an executive session.
“You cannot change your mind [with] a behind closed doors nose count,” Ritter said, as he introduced a resolution which would make the opinion shifts legal.
However, the resolution as prepared appeared awkwardly worded according to at-large councilman Steve Williams. The resolution as written merely asked that the August 2009 vote to NOT approve the same offer of settlement be repeated. Instead, Williams asked that the vote be to “affirm” the settlement of Eastham v. City of Huntington.
“I have no problem confirming what was voted on in August,” Williams said, adding, “I have different information now.”
The information came from a packet distributed to council members during the second executive session in which two additional law suits against the city were discussed. City Attorney McClure indicated that the packet included an assessment, possibly prepared by the Human Resource Office, on the potential impact to application of the residency settlement to impairment of one fourth to one third of emergency personnel hired AFTER specific dates.
Based on the emergency personnel data --- which had also been an issue when Mayor Felinton invoked an order for employees to comply by December 15. 2006 --- Williams altered his vote due to the possibility of losing police and fire personnel depending upon the judge’s choice of dates. He wanted to uphold the charter but not revert to a wild west circumstance before the at risk personnel were hired.
Actually, the same issue confronted the 2006 council which voted 6-5 in favor of not extending the December deadline for providing proof of residency. Using a July 1, 2002 cut off [in 2006] the city would have likely lost 16 police officers, 18 firefighters and 17 members of the street department.
Following that meeting, then Mayor Felinton told HNN:
HNN: Do you see any alternative to the firings on Friday?
MAYOR FELINTON: It will probably be Monday morning . There’s no extension. The lack of response [by employee’s to provide proof of residency ] legally has to be seen as a proof of non-residency and thus I’m forced to terminate those who do not comply… I just hope the numbers of people who brought in compliance come up as we get closer to the deadline.
HNN: Do you see a court challenge if you have to start terminating people?
MAYOR FELINTON: Sure, but I want to clarify that we have been fully in compliance with the ordinance . The affidavit itself is proof of residency. Upon information and belief that somebody may be out of compliance, we do investigate. What I see this, as the resolution introduced at the prior meeting by Mr. Ritter is being asked to investigate everybody and go back to 2002. It’s going a little bit above and beyond what the ordinance requires. From the [certified] letters we sent out, its going a little bit beyond the resolution by asking for multiple forms of ID. People need to be compliant and that’s the bottom line. I don’t think everybody was being reasonable on council.
(For the 2006 story, click here: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/061212-rutheford-council.html)
The Court Order entered Monday, Oct. 26 (the order was signed by the judge on Oct. 21, 2009) heavily relies upon “defendants [City of Huntington] lack of diligence” in the enforcement of the residency requirement after July 1, 2002.
“People who were newly employed or appointed by the City of Huntington after July 1, 2002 had reasonable grounds to believe Huntington’s residency requirement would NOT be enforced. Third-parties also had reasonable grounds to believe Huntington’s residence requirements would not be enforced,” Judge Hustead wrote. (Page 11 of Order)
Asserting a legal doctrine of “latches,” the judge declared that the city could not enforce the requirement on those employees due to its own “acts and omissions, acts of Huntington’s employees and appointees and acts of interested third-parties confirm the defendants [city] were not diligent in asserting their rights and disregarded or neglected Huntington’s residency requirements.” (Page 12 of Order)
Judge Hustead wrote that employees and appointees “justifiably incurred living expenses and established lives for themselves and their families outside of the Huntington city limits… [and would now] be prejudiced should Huntington’s residency requirements be enforced.” (Order Page 12)
PASSIONATELY STEVE WILLIAMS EXPLAINS HIS CHANGE OF MIND REASONING
Returning to the settlement order, Steve Williams prefaced his remarks by stating “it is our responsibility to uphold the charter to the best of our skill and judgment.”
Revealing his reason for switching his vote, he told council members , the administration and viewers, that based on the residency survey in the packet AT WORST 57 police officers would be terminated. “I am not willing to risk that,” Williams said, adding that by taking his oath of office he “did not check my mind, experience and ability to analyze” repercussions.”
The councilman said that if a cutoff date after 2007 was used, then, the city would lose 12 police officers and 13 firefighters.
By voting to accept the settlement and preclude drastic law enforcement and safety shortages, “I’m [still] supporting the charter because the language says we [must] create a safe place to life. [And] I will do everything in my power to make sure our citizens are safe.”
His statement shifted the parliamentary maneuvering and name calling… for some.
Councilman Houck who had strongly argued that Robert’s Rules would be violated by voting stepped back and said, “I am upset with the way it [the settlement agreement] took place.” He then challenged council members to “get off the residency kick and move the city forward.”
Like Houck, Rebecka Thacker did not alter her vote, but she did ask for better communication to council members “when something this serious” is decided.
Ritter expressed a compliment to former public works director Dr. Wayne Pollard. Dr. Pollard stepped down when he determined he would not move into the city. “Pollard had the integrity not to lie. Other [employees] lied [by signing the employment documents],” Ritter concluded.
Ms. Jackson intervened about the number of employees who would be included in the false swearing accusation of Ritter. “Some of the 57 [police officers] probably were hired before Judge O’Hanlon struck it [the residency requirement] down.” (Editor’s Note: In a prior complaint, Judge O’Hanlon enjoined the city from enforcement of the requirement because it had not been equally and diligently enforced. O’Hanlon removed the injunction under the assertion that the city would begin diligently enforcing the requirement.)
Vice chairperson Mark Bates --- the other member who changed his mind --- had kept mostly out of the exchanges between Ritter, Insco, Williams , McClure and Houck spoke briefly before the vote reminding that the newly elected council members (such as himself) had “inherited” the residency issue and “it needs to be resolved.”
Obviously, the intent of most of council and the administration appeared to be letting the new date be the line in the sand for enforcement, as earlier lines of demarcation had been soiled by ambiguities from previous administrations.
Long time council observer Dee Everett Fullerton stated , “the murky waters have really come up tonight” and prior to the vote added, “It keeps getting deeper and darker. I’m sorry for each and every one who votes to uphold [the court order].”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
