The City Council’s override Monday of a veto by Mayor Bruce Chuluda is the latest indication of “a fundamental disagreement” over his authority.
Calling it “inappropriate and unnecessary,” Chuluda vetoed an amendment to the policy on city employee severance packages that would require City Council approval for any such agreement that exceeded $3,000.
The City Council had passed the amendment unanimously last month, and quickly overrode the veto, 6-1, Monday, with Chuluda gaining the support of only City Councilor John O’Hara, who said he had changed his mind about the policy.
City councilors and the mayor, in interviews after the meeting, also characterized the debate as a larger one over the mayor’s powers, in which Chuluda believes the City Council is trying to erode his power and councilors believe he is overstepping his authority.
The issue stems from a debate last fall about whether Chuluda was authorized to write a severance check for more than $50,000, plus the cost of benefits, to Tina Crellin, former human resources director.
Crellin resigned her position in September 2007 after a public dispute with City Councilor Michael Foley. She was paid the remainder of her salary through this month, leaving the city without the money to hire a replacement. Since Crellin’s resignation, City Administrator Jerre Bryant has been acting as human resources director.
According to Chuluda, once the council authorizes the salary of a city employee, the mayor has the authority to use that salary for severance packages for that employee if he or she needs to vacate a position under an extraordinary circumstance. Councilors, however, say the money is authorized for a job to be performed, and if it’s going to be used for another purpose, the council has to approve that use.
“We have a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not I indeed have that authority,” Chuluda said Tuesday.
Using city money for an employee’s severance package, leaving the city unable to pay a new employee to perform the job, doesn’t sit well with Council President Brendan Rielly.
“That position is deemed to be necessary for the functioning of the city,” he said. According to Rielly, if the money isn’t used for that purpose, then either the position wasn’t necessary in the first place, or the citizens are being underserved.
Rielly said that though there are situations where severance packages need to be negotiated, such as with Crellin, it still has to come back to the City Council for authorization because it’s a different use of the taxpayers’ money.
By bringing the issue to the council, Chuluda said, it prolongs the process of severing an employee from the city and “makes it more of a public issue than it perhaps needs to be.”
According to Rielly, it should be a public issue.
“It’s the taxpayers’ money. We should be above board and accountable for how we spend the taxpayers’ money,” he said. “There’s absolutely no reason to stick this stuff in a drawer.”
Under the city’s charter, City Council approval is already required in order for the mayor to spend more than $3,000. Councilor Drew Gattine said he believes that requirement applies to the negotiation of severance packages. The purpose for the amendment to the policy, he said, is not to change the authority of the mayor, but to further clarify it.
“I think a lot of people are going to view what we did as fixing something,” Gattine said Tuesday. “It continues to disappoint me that he thinks he has the authority in the first place. It’s troubling.”
Neither Gattine nor Rielly said they were surprised that the mayor vetoed the City Council action.
“It’s becoming a common thing, and I think that’s unfortunate,” Rielly said, about the mayor using the veto – a practice he called unproductive and confrontational.
Chuluda said this is the first time he has used his veto to change a city policy. Previously, he has used the veto on the city budget.
“I don’t use it willy-nilly,” he said.
According to Chuluda, there is more at play than the disagreement on the specific policy. It’s part of a trend of the City Council to reduce the mayor’s authority.
“They’re working to erode the power of the mayor,” Chuluda said.
According to Gattine, that’s not the case.
“I’m seeing a number of things that make me think that the power is being abused,” he said. “It isn’t really a political issue. It’s what the authority of the mayor is under the charter.”
O’Hara said he believes the policy change was a political move. He said the amendment was first brought to the City Council around the time of the last election.
“I think this was an election issue brought forward to make the mayor look like he was callous with city funds, and this mayor certainly is not,” he said. “Crafting a policy to make the administration look bad, I don’t agree with.”
Though the councilors and the mayor all have their own ideas about why the policy change was made, they all say it’s not personal.
“I have no hard feelings against the council,” Chuluda said.
“We just see things differently, I guess,” said Gattine.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
