The city government of Lake Worth has once again become dysfunctional. We were getting on track. It took several years of Stanton working night and day so that we could start seeing results. This new commission ended it all because they want to administer the day to day functions, not the city manager.Last week, Commissioner Andy Amoroso who had been on the job for three weeks, said that he had changed his mind on giving the city manager at least six months so that he could fairly evaluate her. Instead, he told the Post that after talking to some department heads, he changed his mind thus he fired Stanton after only 3 weeks on the job. So if we can even believe this explanation, he didn't give any particulars on those discussions or who he met with and what they said.
We have a City Manager/Commission form of government. That is why there is a clear line between administrative functions and policy decisions. Commissioners must go through the city manager who then in turn will talk to her department heads. No commissioner is to go to a department head directly.
The government is locked up because there are some commissioners, urged on by their supporters, who believe that they have the right to make the day to day decisions in our City. They do not. They set policy and direct the city manager to carry out that policy.
To go around the city manager and speak to department heads is a violation of our Charter and perhaps a violation of ethics.
22 comments:
Maybe we need the inspector general to come in and investigate.
I guess we just need to move forward now in this great little city by the sea, let's hope it just keeps getting better and better!
Aren't you referring to non-interference? That is where a commissioner may not order an employee of the City Manager to do something, thet he/she must go through the city manager.
Non-interference does not mean the commissioner can't ask questions of employees or get their opinions of how they get their job done.
If an employee of the City Manager has a complaint about how they are being treated, they can go to a Commissioner to seek advice or have the commissioner speak with the City Manager.
Nothing in our Charter, ethically or otherwise, prohibits that.
If a Commissioner wants something done, they may not go to the employee of the City Manager.
With what they did by firing Susan, it showed a sunshine violation in my opinion, the other question to ask is, what would prevent Andy going to the finance director and asking him to cut a check? This was a defintiie violation of the Charter.
John Jordan
Interference with administration.
Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations, the city commission or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager, and neither the city commission nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee either publicly or privately. Nothing in the foregoing is to be construed to prohibit individual members of the city commission from closely scrutinizing by questions and personal observation, all aspects of city government operations so as to obtain independent information to assist the members in the formulation of sound policies to be considered by the city commission. It is the express intent of this charter, however, that recommendations for improvement in city government operations by individual commissioners be made to and through the city manager, so that the manager may coordinate efforts of all city departments to achieve the greatest possible savings through the most efficient and sound means available.
Andy's hat speaks volumes
This entire thing of Maxwell's was not on the agenda. There is nothing kosher about it.
If Andy was investigating Stanton, it is time for him to come forward and reveal the details of that. Names and dates are important to the truth here.
It is important for Amoroso now to explain who he talked to and about what. If he was interviewing department heads to make a case against Susan Stanton, then he needs to tell the public about these meetings. If he does not, then what he said is not credible nor is it ethical. If he was guestioning a department head about a directive from Stanton, he is on shaky grounds.
Lynn, I was told that he doesn't read your blog and could care less what you say.
LOL above poster. Anon at 10:33 and 10:39--I agree 100%. Let's get department heads remarks on the record so that we all "can move forward." Barf.
This city is dysfunctional, you are right on that one. I can't even imagine a department head talking against his boss to a member on the commission. Pretty silly to even think about. Then again, this whole matter is just that.
Helen
I like Andy but I think he did the wrong thing going along with Scott. My husband likes him even more because of all the stuff he sells in his back room. HOT.
Andy is a terrible evil person. Anyone that voted for Andy is a terrible evil person. Anyone that supports Andy is a terrible evil person. Anyone that approves the firing of the city manager is a terrible evil person.
The power hungry development crowd that overdeveloped every square inch of this city are terrible evil people this is part of their master plan to turn our charming little city with all it's small town charm into Ft. Lauderdale or Miami. Susan Stanton was the best thing to ever happen to this city.
It was everyone else's fault they couldn't get along with her. It was everyone else's fault they couldn't negotiate with her, it was everyone else's fault she wouldn't provide all important information to the commissioners or city staff. it's everyone else's fault except Susan Stanton.
Are you all happy now? Can you move on to claiming the mayor is backed by developers and is going to level the city, or that the CRA is wasting millions of dollars.
John Jordan. Wasn't he the guy that ran for mayor as a joke?
More than likely it is you who has the evil streak.
Doesn't anyone think, as I do, that a new Commissioner taking the time to speak to the Dept heads is a good thing? Isn't that considered not keeping one's head in the sand? Wasn't everyone up in arms that the Commission took direction from the City Manager?
Why the backlash against Amoroso for finding out, for himself what is really going on in all the Depts?
I think it shows a proactive approach toward good governing, no? More information is always better than less.
John Jordan has many valid arguments. He is not a joke, certainly not to be compared to Dustin Zacks who knew nothing but to tear apart Waterman.
It depends anony at 1:35. If he talked to heads, name them. If he talked to heads, let us know what they revealed to him that would make him listen to 3rd party information over the city manager who everyone knows was a tough boss. You can talk to any employee on any given day and they will hate their boss. The point here is, what did he do, what did he learn, why did he do it? You don't go firing someone because someone else didn't like the person/ How absurd is that?
Lynn,
Some of the stories I heard were of an obnoxious overbearing hormonally driven crazy person..... at times. Why would I devulge the names of people who confided in me in fear of losing their own job?
Your demand to know who he spoke with is out of bounds. You cited the provision that allows a commissioner to ask questions and observe how the city is running. That is not interference.
That is also why we have a clause allowing a majority to dismiss, without cause, the city manager. That is also why the City Manager get severance pay. It is a volatile position. It is a political position. Politics changed, the pendulum has swung the other way. Time to move on.
Hopefully tonight will be the last of beating this dead horse.
Bravo anon @ 1:48,
While I personally like Stanton and thought she did a good job, I realize other opinions may vary. And I certainly don't pretend to know what's gone on behind closed doors at City Hall - new Commission, new plans, new outlook for LW - let's see how it plays out before we castigate their efforts.
4:26 you sound like someone from the financial advisory board.
What in hell is the new outlook? Don't you think these three people should have clued the electorate in?
Post a Comment