MONROE - Some Monroe aldermen contend Mayor Bill Ross overstepped his authority last month when he rejected the counter-offer of the first-place candidate for the city administrator position and offered the job to the Common Council's second choice.
"It was shocking to a number of us to wake up Sunday (Oct. 10) and find our second choice was offered the contract," said Michael Boyce, a member of the Salary and Personnel Committee.
Questions over the hiring process on that Saturday in October linger as the new city administrator, Phil Rath of Clinton, is about to start his new job Dec. 6 in Monroe.
The rift on the council over the hiring is evident in city records obtained by The Monroe Times under a Freedom of Information request. In one exchange, Ken Witt, of Sparta, the city's first choice for administrator, apparently withdraw his name from consideration due to infighting among city officials.
"In the end, I felt we were a little way apart on the contract and I also had a very uneasy feeling about the politics in Monroe," Witt wrote to Alderman Thurston Hanson in an e-mail. "I think the political divide on the Council and with the Mayor would make it difficult to implement the change that you need."
A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
At issue is just how much authority the mayor had in the hiring process - and whether the ability to negotiate included rejecting Witt's counter-offer and offering the position to Rath.
Hanson, Boyce and fellow aldermen Jan Lefevre and Kent Kallembach maintain Ross was not authorized to that extent.
It depends to what extent, if any, the mayor's statutory "authority to negotiate" was exceeded, says Kallembach.
If the Common Council had given the mayor authority to negotiate contract terms with the candidates, he "clearly had no authority to reject" a counter offer, said Kallembach.
"Negotiations should occur at committee level," he added.
But Ross said he "acted in good faith," and believes his authority to negotiate included rejecting the counter-offer and offering the position to the council's second candidate.
And at least three aldermen, including the chairman of the Salary and Personnel committee, concur with Ross.
INTERVIEW AND
JOB OFFER
Council members interviewed three finalists for the city administrator position on the morning of Oct. 9, selecting Witt and Rath as the top two choices, and then discussed how employment negotiations would proceed before adjourning at about 1 p.m. Alderman Keith Ingwell was absent, and Alderman Dan Henke left the meeting before the discussion of negotiating authority and process took place.
Public Administration Associates, LLC, the firm hired to conduct the city's candidate search and assist in the hiring process, called Witt about the city's offer at about 4 p.m. and e-mailed the city's employment agreement, which included an annual salary of $100,000, 17 weeks severance pay and three weeks of vacation, to him at about 5:30 p.m.At 7:15 that night, Rath sent his counter-offer to PAA, which forwarded it to Ross. Included in Witt's counter-offer was an additional $5,000 for salary and 35 additional weeks of termination severance pay for a total of 52 weeks.
Ross spoke by phone with Bill Frueh from PAA about Witt's counter-offer at about 7:15 p.m. and reviewed Witt's counter-proposal. He then spoke by phone with Charles Koch, council president; Charles Schuringa, chairman of the Salary and Personnel Committee; and Rex Ewald, city attorney, between 8 and 9:30 p.m. He directed PAA to reject Witt's counter-offer and to extend the contract to Rath at about 9:30 p.m.
"The mayor did not act alone," Ross said. "We followed PAA's (the city's hiring firm) recommendations right down the line. With the facts and PAA's advice, we acted on what we felt was the proper thing to do. I don't see where we did anything wrong."
But others do: Boyce said his understanding was that "negotiations were not to end without a vote of Salary and Personnel and following that, the Common Council."
"City ordinances gives the Salary and Personnel Committee the authority to negotiate and the decision is the council's to accept (the agreement), not the mayor's on Saturday night," he said.
Although Witt was asking for an annual salary about $30,000 more than Rath, Lefevre said the council members thought the city would realize a potential cost savings over time because of the services Witt could offer.
"We all felt that he (Witt) was the best qualified," Lefevre wrote.
Lefevre, in a written account of her recollections of the council's directions to the mayor, said the council decided to offer the position to Witt, and then to negotiate with Witt on any counter-offers to the city's employment agreement.
"There was a discussion - not a vote - that if the negotiations broke down and an agreement couldn't be reached, then the mayor could offer the position to Phil Rath," she wrote.
DIFFERING OPINIONS
Koch, Schuringa, and Alderman Paul Hannes believe the mayor did have the authority to act as he did, based on their understanding of the council's discussions at the Oct. 9 meeting.
Neal Hunter said Nov. 3 that he couldn't remember the details of that meeting. But the city's minutes of a closed meeting on Oct. 11 reflect Hunter as saying it was his understanding that the mayor was given that (negotiating) authority, even though there was not an official vote.
Koch said his reaction when Ross informed him of Witt's counter-proposal was to reject it.
"I thought the we (the city) couldn't afford it," he said. "I ran the figures through my head, and it totaled about $100,000 more than we offered.
"At that point, I believed he (Ross) did have the authority to go further (with the negotiations)," Koch added.
Schuringa said the council discussed Oct. 9 what should happen if Witt declined the city's original employment offer.
"We said he (Frueh) and the mayor could go to that second guy," Schuringa said. "That would save us weeks of meetings.
"We had a general consensus, and all were in agreement," he added.
Schuringa believed, based on his phone conversation with the mayor Oct. 9, that Witt would not re-negotiate his changes to the city's proposal.
"I took into consideration what the department heads and the rest of the council thought about Witt, and him standing pat on what he wanted. If he's not going to give or take - negotiations were over," Schuringa explained.
"With that in mind, and he doesn't want to do any movement, I thought we should go with the second man," he added.
But Boyce and Hanson said the mayor should have talked with Witt about the changes Witt wanted. Furthermore, they said Ross never gave the council the chance to negotiate the terms with Witt.
Hanson said meetings were scheduled for the week of Oct. 11, in anticipation of discussing a counter-offer. The council had set Oct. 19 as the date on which it wanted to vote on a final employment agreement.
REOPENING
NEGOTIATIONS
On Oct. 11, council members met to discuss Witt's counter-proposal and the mayor's actions to reject it. It voted to re-open negotiations with Witt and directed Ewald and the Salary and Personnel Committee to work on a new offer to Witt.
The motion passed 6-3, with Koch, Schuringa and Paul Hannes voting against. Ingwell was absent.
Hannes said he voted against the motion because he thought Witt's counter offer was "far-fetched."
"My feeling was that he was holding the city hostage. Fifty-two weeks (of termination severance pay) is unreasonable. He was looking for a $150,000 vacation check," he said.
"I didn't want any part of that; the taxpayers would have killed us," he added.
Hanson said he "didn't see anything crazy" about the counter-offer, and had called Witt on Oct. 11 to ask him to explain his reasons for the counter-offer.
"Had the mayor been negotiating in good faith, that's what he should have done, or Bill Frueh should have done," he said.
Hanson said Witt was willing to be flexible on several items in the counter-offer.
"His two big points were severance language and severance pay," he added.
Schuringa said he, Koch and Ewald had a conference call with Witt Oct. 15. City records show Ewald sent a revised city employment agreement to Witt at about 3 p.m. Oct. 15.The new offer gave Witt several of the items requested in his counter-offer, including a gross annual salary of $105,000 and a 52-week severance pay at gross salary in the event of termination without cause. In addition, he wanted to be placed at Year 14 instead of Year 8 in the city's schedule for determining vacation benefits. The city grants four weeks of vacation for Year 15, so Witt would have received three weeks of vacation his first year, and four weeks of vacation thereafter.
The city retained its right not to pay severance pay if Witt was terminated for cause, defined to include actions such as conviction of crimes, endangerment, insubordination, willful violation of city policy, and unreasonable absences.
Also, the city's payments for severance would be distributed in bi-weekly payments, rather than in one lump sum, as Witt requested, and severance pay would stop or be reduced if Witt obtained gainful employment.
The city's new offer did not include Witt's request to receive all contributions the city would have made towards his benefits package; it did retain the city's original offer to continue paying his health insurance premiums until he regained employment.
Witt contacted Ross later that afternoon and declined the offer, according to minutes of a Salary and Personnel Committee meeting Oct. 18.
Ross said Witt withdrew from consideration for the position during that conversation.
Hanson received a personal e-mail from Witt, sent at about 3:45 p.m. Oct. 15, informing him that Witt had declined the offer.
"In the end I felt we were a little way apart on the contract and I also had a very uneasy feeling about the politics in Monroe," Witt wrote. "I think the political divide on the Council and with the Mayor would make it difficult to implement the change that you need."
AFTERMATH
Alderman Lefevre noted that council members liked Rath during the interview process and that Rath was her first choice until Witt was interviewed.
The council voted unanimously Oct. 19 to accept the employment agreement offered to Rath on Oct. 10.
Rath signed the city's original agreement offered to him, at $75,000 annual salary and a 17-week severance pay for termination without cause. He will start at Year 8 on the city's vacation schedule, giving him three weeks of vacation. His only change to the contract was extending his starting date to one week later than the city requested.
And regardless of how he came to be hired, aldermen have voiced their support for Rath.
"Philip Rath is a leader who will guide our City towards greater fiscal responsibility and accountability," Hanson wrote in a letter to the editor published Oct. 27 in The Monroe Times. "In the end, with a unanimous vote, the council hired a very skilled candidate ... I encourage citizens and community leaders to support him."
"It was shocking to a number of us to wake up Sunday (Oct. 10) and find our second choice was offered the contract," said Michael Boyce, a member of the Salary and Personnel Committee.
Questions over the hiring process on that Saturday in October linger as the new city administrator, Phil Rath of Clinton, is about to start his new job Dec. 6 in Monroe.
The rift on the council over the hiring is evident in city records obtained by The Monroe Times under a Freedom of Information request. In one exchange, Ken Witt, of Sparta, the city's first choice for administrator, apparently withdraw his name from consideration due to infighting among city officials.
"In the end, I felt we were a little way apart on the contract and I also had a very uneasy feeling about the politics in Monroe," Witt wrote to Alderman Thurston Hanson in an e-mail. "I think the political divide on the Council and with the Mayor would make it difficult to implement the change that you need."
A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
At issue is just how much authority the mayor had in the hiring process - and whether the ability to negotiate included rejecting Witt's counter-offer and offering the position to Rath.
Hanson, Boyce and fellow aldermen Jan Lefevre and Kent Kallembach maintain Ross was not authorized to that extent.
It depends to what extent, if any, the mayor's statutory "authority to negotiate" was exceeded, says Kallembach.
If the Common Council had given the mayor authority to negotiate contract terms with the candidates, he "clearly had no authority to reject" a counter offer, said Kallembach.
"Negotiations should occur at committee level," he added.
But Ross said he "acted in good faith," and believes his authority to negotiate included rejecting the counter-offer and offering the position to the council's second candidate.
And at least three aldermen, including the chairman of the Salary and Personnel committee, concur with Ross.
INTERVIEW AND
JOB OFFER
Council members interviewed three finalists for the city administrator position on the morning of Oct. 9, selecting Witt and Rath as the top two choices, and then discussed how employment negotiations would proceed before adjourning at about 1 p.m. Alderman Keith Ingwell was absent, and Alderman Dan Henke left the meeting before the discussion of negotiating authority and process took place.
Public Administration Associates, LLC, the firm hired to conduct the city's candidate search and assist in the hiring process, called Witt about the city's offer at about 4 p.m. and e-mailed the city's employment agreement, which included an annual salary of $100,000, 17 weeks severance pay and three weeks of vacation, to him at about 5:30 p.m.At 7:15 that night, Rath sent his counter-offer to PAA, which forwarded it to Ross. Included in Witt's counter-offer was an additional $5,000 for salary and 35 additional weeks of termination severance pay for a total of 52 weeks.
Ross spoke by phone with Bill Frueh from PAA about Witt's counter-offer at about 7:15 p.m. and reviewed Witt's counter-proposal. He then spoke by phone with Charles Koch, council president; Charles Schuringa, chairman of the Salary and Personnel Committee; and Rex Ewald, city attorney, between 8 and 9:30 p.m. He directed PAA to reject Witt's counter-offer and to extend the contract to Rath at about 9:30 p.m.
"The mayor did not act alone," Ross said. "We followed PAA's (the city's hiring firm) recommendations right down the line. With the facts and PAA's advice, we acted on what we felt was the proper thing to do. I don't see where we did anything wrong."
But others do: Boyce said his understanding was that "negotiations were not to end without a vote of Salary and Personnel and following that, the Common Council."
"City ordinances gives the Salary and Personnel Committee the authority to negotiate and the decision is the council's to accept (the agreement), not the mayor's on Saturday night," he said.
Although Witt was asking for an annual salary about $30,000 more than Rath, Lefevre said the council members thought the city would realize a potential cost savings over time because of the services Witt could offer.
"We all felt that he (Witt) was the best qualified," Lefevre wrote.
Lefevre, in a written account of her recollections of the council's directions to the mayor, said the council decided to offer the position to Witt, and then to negotiate with Witt on any counter-offers to the city's employment agreement.
"There was a discussion - not a vote - that if the negotiations broke down and an agreement couldn't be reached, then the mayor could offer the position to Phil Rath," she wrote.
DIFFERING OPINIONS
Koch, Schuringa, and Alderman Paul Hannes believe the mayor did have the authority to act as he did, based on their understanding of the council's discussions at the Oct. 9 meeting.
Neal Hunter said Nov. 3 that he couldn't remember the details of that meeting. But the city's minutes of a closed meeting on Oct. 11 reflect Hunter as saying it was his understanding that the mayor was given that (negotiating) authority, even though there was not an official vote.
Koch said his reaction when Ross informed him of Witt's counter-proposal was to reject it.
"I thought the we (the city) couldn't afford it," he said. "I ran the figures through my head, and it totaled about $100,000 more than we offered.
"At that point, I believed he (Ross) did have the authority to go further (with the negotiations)," Koch added.
Schuringa said the council discussed Oct. 9 what should happen if Witt declined the city's original employment offer.
"We said he (Frueh) and the mayor could go to that second guy," Schuringa said. "That would save us weeks of meetings.
"We had a general consensus, and all were in agreement," he added.
Schuringa believed, based on his phone conversation with the mayor Oct. 9, that Witt would not re-negotiate his changes to the city's proposal.
"I took into consideration what the department heads and the rest of the council thought about Witt, and him standing pat on what he wanted. If he's not going to give or take - negotiations were over," Schuringa explained.
"With that in mind, and he doesn't want to do any movement, I thought we should go with the second man," he added.
But Boyce and Hanson said the mayor should have talked with Witt about the changes Witt wanted. Furthermore, they said Ross never gave the council the chance to negotiate the terms with Witt.
Hanson said meetings were scheduled for the week of Oct. 11, in anticipation of discussing a counter-offer. The council had set Oct. 19 as the date on which it wanted to vote on a final employment agreement.
REOPENING
NEGOTIATIONS
On Oct. 11, council members met to discuss Witt's counter-proposal and the mayor's actions to reject it. It voted to re-open negotiations with Witt and directed Ewald and the Salary and Personnel Committee to work on a new offer to Witt.
The motion passed 6-3, with Koch, Schuringa and Paul Hannes voting against. Ingwell was absent.
Hannes said he voted against the motion because he thought Witt's counter offer was "far-fetched."
"My feeling was that he was holding the city hostage. Fifty-two weeks (of termination severance pay) is unreasonable. He was looking for a $150,000 vacation check," he said.
"I didn't want any part of that; the taxpayers would have killed us," he added.
Hanson said he "didn't see anything crazy" about the counter-offer, and had called Witt on Oct. 11 to ask him to explain his reasons for the counter-offer.
"Had the mayor been negotiating in good faith, that's what he should have done, or Bill Frueh should have done," he said.
Hanson said Witt was willing to be flexible on several items in the counter-offer.
"His two big points were severance language and severance pay," he added.
Schuringa said he, Koch and Ewald had a conference call with Witt Oct. 15. City records show Ewald sent a revised city employment agreement to Witt at about 3 p.m. Oct. 15.The new offer gave Witt several of the items requested in his counter-offer, including a gross annual salary of $105,000 and a 52-week severance pay at gross salary in the event of termination without cause. In addition, he wanted to be placed at Year 14 instead of Year 8 in the city's schedule for determining vacation benefits. The city grants four weeks of vacation for Year 15, so Witt would have received three weeks of vacation his first year, and four weeks of vacation thereafter.
The city retained its right not to pay severance pay if Witt was terminated for cause, defined to include actions such as conviction of crimes, endangerment, insubordination, willful violation of city policy, and unreasonable absences.
Also, the city's payments for severance would be distributed in bi-weekly payments, rather than in one lump sum, as Witt requested, and severance pay would stop or be reduced if Witt obtained gainful employment.
The city's new offer did not include Witt's request to receive all contributions the city would have made towards his benefits package; it did retain the city's original offer to continue paying his health insurance premiums until he regained employment.
Witt contacted Ross later that afternoon and declined the offer, according to minutes of a Salary and Personnel Committee meeting Oct. 18.
Ross said Witt withdrew from consideration for the position during that conversation.
Hanson received a personal e-mail from Witt, sent at about 3:45 p.m. Oct. 15, informing him that Witt had declined the offer.
"In the end I felt we were a little way apart on the contract and I also had a very uneasy feeling about the politics in Monroe," Witt wrote. "I think the political divide on the Council and with the Mayor would make it difficult to implement the change that you need."
AFTERMATH
Alderman Lefevre noted that council members liked Rath during the interview process and that Rath was her first choice until Witt was interviewed.
The council voted unanimously Oct. 19 to accept the employment agreement offered to Rath on Oct. 10.
Rath signed the city's original agreement offered to him, at $75,000 annual salary and a 17-week severance pay for termination without cause. He will start at Year 8 on the city's vacation schedule, giving him three weeks of vacation. His only change to the contract was extending his starting date to one week later than the city requested.
And regardless of how he came to be hired, aldermen have voiced their support for Rath.
"Philip Rath is a leader who will guide our City towards greater fiscal responsibility and accountability," Hanson wrote in a letter to the editor published Oct. 27 in The Monroe Times. "In the end, with a unanimous vote, the council hired a very skilled candidate ... I encourage citizens and community leaders to support him."