This letter is somewhat like the articles that The Monroe Times puts in its Our Views section, but this is my view on the recent dismissal of Mark Vahlsing as administrator of the City of Monroe.
Mark was hired during Mayor Ross' time as mayor of Monroe. Much time and effort was put into this endeavor to hire the right person, which I feel very strongly that we did.
Mark was dismissed on the grounds of not doing his job as human resource director. Understand this was not the real reason; part of the reason, yes. But then I must also qualify the fact that there are no human resource guidelines established at the city level. No policies or procedures are in place. So how can one be terminated when no policies or procedures are in place?
It is real easy to say things, spread lies, and tell stories about any given person at any given time. Was the investigator told the truth about what happened? Was he given unbiased information from the get go? And did he present facts and only facts when he reported back? One other question I have regarding the private investigator - did the mayor have the right to hire him without City Council approval? Some say yes; others say no. There seems to be a bit of perception that the mayor acts on his own without full council knowledge and approval.
By all indications, Mark was doing a very good job promoting the City of Monroe - his primary responsibility when he was hired. I have talked with several different individuals and they spoke very highly of Mark in his ability to promote the city. I, too, was very satisfied with his ability to do this.
Personally, I think there was getting to be a power struggle between the mayor's office and Mark. I also know Mark was not liked by one or more of the alderpersons, but keep in mind personal feelings should not enter into their discussion or decision to dismiss him or anyone else. As an alderperson, you have to decide - was this person doing a good job for the city? I know he was! Mark did not have his day in court, so to speak, to defend himself. This situation arose and the mayor and one or more alderpersons grabbed it and ran with it.
My feeling is that this discrimination suit should have been settled first with Mark being on administrative leave. Then with that settled, know that I feel very confident that Mark would have been vindicated from all accusations, and then his job performance addressed. If at that time we as a council thought that he was not fulfilling his responsibilities, he should have been made aware of what he was doing wrong and a letter of what was discussed put in his file. Remember unusual circumstances pop up all the time and as humans we may not make the best decision at that time - not a one of us is free from mistakes. But for Mark to be dismissed as he was, was wrong, very, very wrong.
We as a council also failed Mark by not giving him a job evaluation, which was our duty (one of our mistakes, are we going to be let go?). I did not realize this was our duty, but who else is he to answer to? It is not the mayor. The administrator answers to the council members, who are to represent the citizens of Monroe, not their own agendas. The structure of an administrative government is set up so that the administrator answers to the council; the mayor is basically a figurehead and holds no power.
My view on this is that there was a conspiracy formed to get Mark removed from office and that conspiracy involves the mayor's office and one or more of your alderpersons, but you as citizens of Monroe have to come to your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to ask questions, get several responses until you feel you have reached the truth.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I feel it is my responsibility as an alderperson to give you the other side of the "story." I, as many others I have talked to, feel that a great injustice was done here.
One other fact that I find very confusing is a recent article in The Monroe Times in which several alderpersons praised Mark's ability as an administrator, but yet voted to remove him on the basis of not doing his job. What gives with that?
- Paul Hannes is a Monroe alderman representing Ward 2.
Mark was hired during Mayor Ross' time as mayor of Monroe. Much time and effort was put into this endeavor to hire the right person, which I feel very strongly that we did.
Mark was dismissed on the grounds of not doing his job as human resource director. Understand this was not the real reason; part of the reason, yes. But then I must also qualify the fact that there are no human resource guidelines established at the city level. No policies or procedures are in place. So how can one be terminated when no policies or procedures are in place?
It is real easy to say things, spread lies, and tell stories about any given person at any given time. Was the investigator told the truth about what happened? Was he given unbiased information from the get go? And did he present facts and only facts when he reported back? One other question I have regarding the private investigator - did the mayor have the right to hire him without City Council approval? Some say yes; others say no. There seems to be a bit of perception that the mayor acts on his own without full council knowledge and approval.
By all indications, Mark was doing a very good job promoting the City of Monroe - his primary responsibility when he was hired. I have talked with several different individuals and they spoke very highly of Mark in his ability to promote the city. I, too, was very satisfied with his ability to do this.
Personally, I think there was getting to be a power struggle between the mayor's office and Mark. I also know Mark was not liked by one or more of the alderpersons, but keep in mind personal feelings should not enter into their discussion or decision to dismiss him or anyone else. As an alderperson, you have to decide - was this person doing a good job for the city? I know he was! Mark did not have his day in court, so to speak, to defend himself. This situation arose and the mayor and one or more alderpersons grabbed it and ran with it.
My feeling is that this discrimination suit should have been settled first with Mark being on administrative leave. Then with that settled, know that I feel very confident that Mark would have been vindicated from all accusations, and then his job performance addressed. If at that time we as a council thought that he was not fulfilling his responsibilities, he should have been made aware of what he was doing wrong and a letter of what was discussed put in his file. Remember unusual circumstances pop up all the time and as humans we may not make the best decision at that time - not a one of us is free from mistakes. But for Mark to be dismissed as he was, was wrong, very, very wrong.
We as a council also failed Mark by not giving him a job evaluation, which was our duty (one of our mistakes, are we going to be let go?). I did not realize this was our duty, but who else is he to answer to? It is not the mayor. The administrator answers to the council members, who are to represent the citizens of Monroe, not their own agendas. The structure of an administrative government is set up so that the administrator answers to the council; the mayor is basically a figurehead and holds no power.
My view on this is that there was a conspiracy formed to get Mark removed from office and that conspiracy involves the mayor's office and one or more of your alderpersons, but you as citizens of Monroe have to come to your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to ask questions, get several responses until you feel you have reached the truth.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I feel it is my responsibility as an alderperson to give you the other side of the "story." I, as many others I have talked to, feel that a great injustice was done here.
One other fact that I find very confusing is a recent article in The Monroe Times in which several alderpersons praised Mark's ability as an administrator, but yet voted to remove him on the basis of not doing his job. What gives with that?
- Paul Hannes is a Monroe alderman representing Ward 2.
