77° F
6 By Eleni Himaras, Staff Writer
The issue of City Administrator Vicky Rudy’s much alluded to, but never publicly debated, employment sparked a contentious debate at last week’s Rollingwood City Council Meeting.
Alderman John Hinton made a motion to hire an employment attorney, DeShazo & Nesbitt, to review Rudy’s contract and questioned the legality of that contract having a fixed duration when City Ordinance specifically prohibits the City Administrator and City Secretary from having fixed terms.
“Had the city of Rollingwood wanted to prohibit contracts, they would have in the ordinance,” said City Attorney Monty Akers, adding that an employment contract with a specific duration is not the same as a fixed term.
While Hinton argued that the contract set Rudy apart from any other employee “that would be subject to all the employment laws,” he would not discuss specific aspects of a performance review, saying it would open the city up to liability.
Alderman Brian Nalle asked if any member of the council had spoken directly with Rudy about her performance or their expectations for her as city administrator. When no one responded, he said he had sent an e-mail to everyone serving on a board or commission and that, of the 25 that responded, 17 expressed confidence and seven said they didn’t interact with Rudy enough to have an opinion.
“I don’t know why it’s difficult to understand why we shouldn’t talk about these things in open session,” Hinton said.
“I tried to meet with you last month, but you refused to meet with me,” Nalle vehemently replied.
Members of the public took to the podium to express their desire to keep the city workings professional, and many of them offered support for Rudy.
“I was involved in the performance review earlier this year, and there were no adverse comments,” said Sarah Hudons. “Vicky has done a great job and made great improvements.”
Former Mayor Tom Farrell said that the issue came down to confidence and that whatever the city was going to do, they should do it quickly and professionally.
“If you have one alderman that doesn’t have confidence in the city administrator, you have a major problem, if you have two, you have a catastrophe,” he said. “But you can’t do it sitting here, you have to be fair.”
Gary Payne called the meeting one of the most embarrassing he’d ever been to.
“If I were [a Rollingwood employee], I’d go home and write a letter of resignation, I’d freakin’ quit. It’s disgusting,” he said.
Jordan Scott also took to the dais to ask the city council to be more professional and that if they needed outside advice, to get it and do what they needed to do so they could focus on more serious issues facing the city.
Mayor Dale Dingley said he believed the city attorney was qualified to review the contract, but when the question was called, the council voted 3-1 in favor of hiring the employment attorney, with Nalle dissenting.
Alderman John Hinton then made a motion that would effectively called for the city not to give Rudy severance pay. Nalle questioned why that motion could be necessary, and City Attorney Monty Akers adamantly suggested that Hinton drop the motion, which he subsequently did.
Part of the motion to hire the employment attorney involved scheduling an executive session to confer with that attorney at the next regular meeting Aug. 19.
The citizens have expressed serious concerns over Ms. Rudy’s actions and behavior while employed in Rollingwood. Is Mr. Nalle silent on this? According to several citizens, Ms. Hutson and Alderman Nalle have heard about concerns, and other council members are also very aware of issues on this subject. Maybe Mr. Payne feels disgust because he has also contributed to the embarrassing situation the city is in. He was removed from a commission appointment because he never bothered to show up. He is an embarrassment. He complains and then is disgusted. Well, so are others.
What is the big deal? To bad the reporter doesn’t hear from the citizens who choose not to speak on this issue for fear of litigation. There are many important and valid concerns as to how city business has been handled. The council has every right to take care of the issue. They are working on behalf of the citizens, finally.
Ms. Hudson never heard discontent while on the council? Alderman Nalle berates those who speak and then berates those who choose not to? Maybe the citizens are just being smart.
Mr. Payne is disgusted? He seems confused about what truly is disgusting. I agree with Fed Up In Rollingwood.
What our council needs is support to move forward and do the right thing for the city. Alderman Hinton is trying to do that. Thank you.
Ms. Rudy had a good review in March of 2009. Her contract was extended for another year until May of 2010.
This is more than likely political which is fine. They simply have to follow the law when it comes to her contract.. She has a 3 month severance in her contract if she is fired. The issue is that if the Council chooses to fire her they will open themselves up to a wrongful termination lawsuit. In order to end her contract early they will need to buy her out with more months- probably six to eight- to avoid a lawsuit which they will lose.
The City Atty has informed them of this but they have chosen to hire a different atty who will hopefully tell them they don’t have to pay more. Either way, if they want her to go they will need to pay her to go which is common practice. Why they don’t just say- we don’t have faith in her, we would like to hire someone new and we want to buy her out is beyond me.
Or, they could just wait until next springs review and vote to not extend her contract. If you look at the numbers that might be the least expensive option. If the Council chooses to buy her out with six months starting at the end of August it would basically be the same as as her staying on until the end of February. If she is gone during this time they will pay for a less than qualified temporary person and then hire someone new.
Seems more logical to just keep her and have her contract end in May after her review next March. A difference of 3 months.
For two people- Hinton and Hamilton- who ran on fiscal responsibility this will cost more??
Hmmm. Is this about a contract or the city administrator? Seems like everyone thinks it is about the city administrator. I wonder why.
Anyone can have a good review if those reviewing ignore the stuff that is not good(!?!?)
Kool-Aid, anyone?
The city, (i.e. city admin.) is spending so much of our money on lawyers on a daily basis that Hamilton and Hinton — somehow the fall guys on everything because they are actually taking the bull by the horns — will be saving everyone money in the long run. Gee you sure investigated the employment contract (the city ordinances forbids anything binding) but I thought it was 3 years. Did OUR city atty write that one for her? Oopsy, a conflict. Now how about investigating the spending with as much rigor?
Is it vigor, not rigor? ….. Sorry, was kinda tipsy.