|
Chapter 1
February 13, 2009
Chapter 2
February 23, 2009
*NEW*
Chapter 3
April 9, 2009
|
SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT
– DOES NEVADA HAVE A SHADOW GOVERNMENT?
An investigative
Report on Events Leading to and Including the Resignation of the City
Manager
Continued from Chapter 1 February 13, 2009
Chapter 2
February 23, 2009
RESIGNATION AND
SETTLEMENT AGREEEMENT
HIGH LIGHTS OF THIS
AGREEMENT
- Made by and between the
City of Nevada, and William McGuire this 21st day of November
2008.
- Mr. McGuire resigns his
position as City Manager November 21, 2008, 5:00 o’clock p.m.
- Mr. McGuire will be paid
any benefits and entitlements earned by him up to but not after November
21, 2008 except that Mr. McGuire will be paid termination compensation
of 180 days of salary at his present level, a payment but for this agreement
is disputed. Payment will be made within ten days of council approval.
- This settlement is subject
to approval of the city council of the City of Nevada, Missouri.
The city will call a special session to review the resignation and act
thereon. In the event the settlement is not approved by the City
Council, this resignation shall be null and void and of no further force
and effect.
- On November 21 2008 the
City Attorney and the Mayor met with the City Manager and informed Mr.
McGuire that the Mayor was calling a special meeting of the Council
next Monday November 24, 2008 to fire the City Manager. If
this was the case, how did Mayor Hutchens know ahead of time that the
council was going to fire the City
Manager?
- When did the City Council
give Mayor Hutchens permission to talk to the City Manager about firing
him? The Mayor has no power to speak for the City Council or sign any
documents without a majority vote of the City Council. How
did Mayor Hutchens know he had a 4/5 affirmative vote to fire the City
Manager???? (Footnote (a, b, e, g).
- Had the City Council ever
met and talked to the City Manager about his performance?
If so when? Was due diligence ever performed? I can find
no council meeting agenda or minutes, either in open meeting or closed
meeting, where the City Council ever discussed or voted to fire the
City Manager and agree by majority vote for Mayor Hutchens to negotiate
on their behalf. If they took a vote in closed meeting, that vote
has never been disclosed as required by the Sunshine Law. (Footnote
(g).
- The City Manager did not
wish to be fired, he assumed that the Mayor had authority from the City
Council to fire him. He told the City Attorney he would resign immediately
if an amicable agreement could be reached.
- The City Attorney and Mayor
Hutchens came to the City Manager’s office late on the afternoon of
Friday November 21, 2008 with a Settlement Agreement which Mr. McGuire
signed. I have a copy of the Agreement and all the signatures
are on the Agreement.
- Mr. McGuire cleaned out
his desk and left City Hall never to return, and he probably had left
town by the time the City Council called their special meeting to order
on Monday November 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
- The City Council was informed
for the first time of the Settlement Agreement by Mayor Hutchens
after the fact on Saturday November 22, 2008.
At that time they were told that there would be a special council meeting
Monday November 24 at 7:30 p.m. to ratify the agreement. The City
Council was painted into a corner by Mayor Hutchens who in my opinion
had conspired to vacate the office of the City Manager. They had
to vote to ratify the agreement. They simply had no alternative.
- Ratification of the signed
Settlement Agreement on November 24, 2008 by the City Council legalized
the Settlement Agreement; however
MAYOR HUTCHENS VIOLATED THE CITY CHARTER BECAUSE HE HAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS. (Footnote (a) (b). THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER
ON NOVEMBER 21, 2008 AND the SIGNING OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
THE MAYOR ARE ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS. MAYOR HUTCHENS ASSUMED
POWERS THAT HE DOES NOT LEGALLY POSSESS.
How can you make Mayor Hutchens’ actions legal after the fact?
The City Council legalized the Settlement Agreement, not
the Mayor’s actions. Ordinance 7488 was passed by a unanimous
vote of the City Council. The City Council in no way approved
the actions of Mayor Hutchens. (Footnote (a, b).
- I cannot find in any
open or closed council minutes or agenda, where the City Council met
and by majority vote authorized the Mayor to meet with the City Manager
and enter into negotiations concerning a Resignation or Settlement Agreement.
What was the big hurry to get the City Manager to resign? Did
the Shadow Government already have a candidate to take his place!!!!
The hiring so suddenly of Harlan Moore completely upset their secret
plans and the Mayor had to go along with the hiring of Mr. Moore because
he had no choice.
- The City Council had no
notice that Mayor Hutchens had signed a Resignation and Settlement Agreement
until Saturday Nov. 22, 2008 when the Mayor personally brought them
their council packet for the called Monday night meeting. The agreement
was in their packet. The councilpersons I talked to were surprised
to see a Resignation and Settlement Agreement in their packet since
there had never been any discussion or vote to authorize the Mayor to
take any action or sign said agreement with the City Manager. I know
Mr. McGuire signed five copies before he left Friday November 21, 2008.
But I understand that no signed Settlement Agreement was in evidence
at the Monday night meeting. More Secrets? The meeting was called
to order at 7:30 p. m. and adjourned at 7:35 p.m. In my opinion Mayor
Hutchens has discovered a very clever way to get rid of a City Manager
whom he wishes to replace:
- First harassment, making
the City Manager very uncomfortable in his job.
- Threaten the City Manager
illegally with dismissal without compensation unless a Settlement Agreement
is signed by the City Manager.
- Ignore the City Charter:
it is just a hindrance and the Mayor is above the law.
- A Settlement Agreement is
magically brought forth with a condition that the contract is not valid
until ratified by the City Council, even as much as 3 days after the
date of the contract.
- The City Council, having
been put in an untenable position (in this case that of having no City
Manager) ratifies the Agreement.
- Was there a line item in
the budget showing an appropriation for “Termination Compensation”?
The Charter reads as follows:
“Any authorization of payment or
incurring of obligation in violation of the provisions of this
charter shall be void and payment so made illegal: such action
shall be shall be cause for removal of any officer who knowingly authorized
or made such payment or incurred such obligation, and the officer
shall also be liable to the city for any amount so paid”.
- The 2008 budget was not
changed to appropriate the “Termination Compensation”
before the Mayor signed the Resignation and Settlement Agreement
on Friday November 21, 2008 or at the time the Resignation and
Settlement Agreement was ratified by
the City Council on Monday November 24, 2008. This creates a $44,750.00
problem for Mayor Hutchens. Mayor Hutchens in his zeal to
remove the City Manager from office as soon as possible
incurred an obligation to the City of Nevada for $44,750.00. You can’t
obligate the city to pay out money for goods, services, contracts etc.
unless they have been appropriated in the
budget. When any City Official doesn’t follow
the laws of the City of Nevada there are consequences.
- THE MONEY
HAS BEEN PAID TO MR. MCGUIRE AND IT WASN’T APPROPRIATED BEFORE
THE OBLIGATION WAS INCURRED. THE MAYOR BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE
AS A CITY COUNCILPERSON HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW WHICH HE TOOK AN OATH
TO DO.
- MAYOR HUTCHENS,YOU ARE
PERSONALLY LIABLE TO THE CITY FOR $44,750.00. RESIGN FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
EVEN IF THE COUNCIL APPROPRIATES THE MONEY
TODAY IT IS “AFTER THE FACT” AND DOES NOT RELIEVE YOU FROM YOUR
LIABILITY. PLEASE WRITE A CHECK FOR $44,750.00 AND PAY THE TAXPAYERS
OF THE CITY OF NEVADA WHAT YOU BY LAW ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DO.
(SEE FOOTNOTE (F).
- If anyone says
“The city has never followed this provision in the City Charter.
Why should they start now?”, the answer is that
from 2000 through 2005 it wasn’t
followed and this is the main reason the City of Nevada
found itself on the brink of bankruptcy in 2006.
- Shadow government and
secrecy in government are recipes for financial disaster!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Did
you notice whom the Mayor just appointed to the planning commission?
Robin Fisher, one of the secret Shadow Government members. Are we now
going to have to battle the group homes 5,280 foot ordinance again?
In my opinion the Mayor and Mayor pro-tem by their own comments and
actions in open Council Meetings and in view of the Mayor’s employment
by Skills Unlimited, have a huge conflict of interest in that fight
and would gain monetarily if that ordinance were changed. And Nevada
would suffer. If the group homes ordinance is revived by the Planning
Commission and is sent on to the City Council the Mayor and the Mayor
pro-tem should recuse themselves from any discussion or voting.
Footnotes. All emphasis
will be ours. Letters in parentheses in the body of the article are
references to the numbers before the sections of the Charter, or the
Sunshine Law which apply.
(a)Section 3.1 Where Powers
Vested. Except as this Charter provides otherwise, all powers
of the city shall be vested in the council.
The council shall provide for the exercise of those
powers and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed
on the city by law.
(b)Section 3.4 Mayor.
The council shall elect from among its members officers of the
city who shall have the titles of mayor and deputy mayor, each whom
shall serve at the pleasure of the council. …..The mayor
shall have no administrative duties and shall have no veto power.
(c)Section 3.6 Vacancies. (b)
Forfeiture of Office: A council member shall forfeit the office
if the council member (2) Violates any express prohibition
of this charter.
(d)Section 3.7 Judge of Qualifications.
The council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of
its members and of the grounds for forfeiture of their office and for
that purpose shall have power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths
and require the production of evidence. A member charged with
conduct constituting grounds for forfeiture of office shall be entitled
to a public hearing on demand. Decisions made by the council under
this section shall be subject to review by the courts.
(e)Section 4.2 Removal.
The council may dismiss the city manager by a four-fifths (4/5)) affirmative
vote of its members. The council may suspend the city manager,
with or without pay by a four-fifths (4/5) affirmative vote of its members.
(f)Section 6.9 Administration
of Budget. (a) Payments and Obligations Prohibited. No payment
shall be made or obligation incurred against any appropriation
except in accordance with appropriations duly made and unless
the manager or the manager’s designee first certifies that there is
sufficient unencumbered balance in such appropriation and that sufficient
funds there from are or will be available to cover the claim or meet
the obligation when it becomes due and payable. Any authorization
of payment or INCURRING of obligation in violation of the provisions
of this charter shall be void and payment so made illegal; such action
shall be cause for removal of any officer who knowingly authorized or
made such payment or incurred such obligation,
and the officer shall also be liable to the city for any amount so paid.
Can disciplinary action be taken
against a public employee in a closed meeting, and can the public find
out what action was taken?
Yes. Under Section 610.021(3)
of the Sunshine Law, a public governmental body can close a meeting
to consider hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting an employee when
personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded.
Personal information relates to the performance or merit of that employee.
But the vote on any final decision to hire, fire, discipline or promote
an employee must be made available to the public within 72 hours
after the closed meeting in which such action occurred and must include
how each member voted. The employee must be given notice of the
decision during the 72 hour period before the decision is made available
to the public.
|
