BENNETTSVILLE — City Council members moved to formalize the duties and authority of the city administrator during Tuesday’s meeting, following council discussion over the role’s hiring authority, disciplinary procedures, ordinance language and budget oversight.
Council unanimously approved a first reading of Ordinance 26-07-005 after a motion was advanced by Councilman Gregory Scott Sr. and second by Councilman Tyrone Davis. The ordinance moves to formalize discussion negotiations surrounding the role of Bennettsville’s city administrator, recently undertaken by council during a workshop earlier this month.
Despite the unanimous vote to approve the updated ordinance language, council still agreed it needs to continue reviewing the city’s appeals process, an action that does not require an immediate decision.
Workshop Discussions
Hiring Authority Questions
During a workshop earlier this month, much of council’s discussion revolved around how much involvement council should have in hiring department heads. Council members said they wanted a more defined process that would allow them to review applications, participate in interviews for finalists and retain final approval authority for key leadership positions.
Jumpstarting discussions, Councilmembers Cy’Heim McRae and Wanda Weaver said they had understood council to have a role in the hiring process for the city’s police chief, fire chief, city finance officer and city attorney positions.
Agreeing, Simon explained, “You’re right. I think y’all are now changing that. Y’all are adding positions, the ordinance [now] says pretty much fire and police.”
Leading Councilwoman Caraline Harpe to question, “So, are we saying then that council reserves the right to hire or participate in the hiring of all the department heads then.”
According to the proposed update in ordinance language, Administrator Simon would only have the authority to appoint all other employees and officers, outside of department heads.
Offering clarification on the language, McRae said, “I guess he [Simon] would have the authority to hire like a meter reader, but when it comes to like the department head of the [Utility Department] meter reader department— then it would be on council and that’s what we’re seeing here.”
Councilman William “Bill” Jennings Jr. emphasized his belief the administrator role should still be involved in the recommendation process.
He said, “We’d be part of interviewing if we choose to be that type thing. But [the] administrator is [the] one that’s going to work with these departments every day, not counsel.”
Voicing her opinion to simplify the process, Councilwoman Harpe suggested leaving final hiring decisions up to council regarding department head positions following a potential candidate’s interview process and recommendations made by the city administrator.
When Jennings asked if council should also be involved in selecting candidates to be interviewed, Harpe agreed, while McRae shared a recent experience of finding someone hired for a position, he said he was unsure they were qualified to hold.
He said, “I would like to kind of know who [and] what these peoples’ qualifications are.”
Some members of council suggested taking an active role in overlooking applications and resumes.
Councilman Jennings said he favored council’s involvement in the process extending to reviewing the top three or five candidates for any given position.
Mayor Tyron Abraham echoed comments made by other council members and urged the body not to lose sight of the fact that it is the city’s administrator who, at the end of the day, will be supervising department heads hired by council.
Appeals process concerns
When it comes to taking disciplinary action, the existing grievance process requires employees to first attempt to resolve concerns with a supervisor. If unresolved, an employee may then submit a written grievance within 14 days. A committee made up of representatives derived from city departments then hears the issue and makes a recommendation to the city administrator.
Council members debated whether department heads should be able to appeal disciplinary decisions directly to council, leading Simon to caution that creating a separate appeals process could conflict with existing personnel policies and the city’s state-sanctioned grievance procedure.
He said, “I’m just saying what y’all are creating is confusion here. The grievance committee… that’s a state-sanctioned process that all governments use per ordinance. Y’all just went in and created something.”
Simon cited the hypothetical example of a city employee being terminated for drunk driving to highlight his reasoning for opposing.
“Employees have grievance rights. I’m not sure how the department head has some other arbitrary right to address or overturn a disciplinary action and all of those are based off policy. So again, if I terminate someone for driving drunk or drinking and driving in a city vehicle, what you’re saying is the department head now has a right, and that’s based on what,” Simon questioned.
He went on to warn council that he felt they were creating a process with no outline for the criteria under which a disciplined employee could then lodge an appeal.
Simon said, “At no time [is an] administrator going into a department and doing disciplinary action without consulting or talking to the department head or even knowing what’s going on. That’s just not the real thing. We’re creating a process around something that’s not real. And on top of that, you get yourselves in trouble. I can only make suggestions here.”
Lastly, Simon advised council against formulating an ordinance arbitrary to the point where an employee can decide, under the language of the ordinance, to get an attorney and sue the city.
“Because they’re not going to just sue me and you, [they are going to] sue the city and your attorneys to get to your personnel policies in your ordinance,” Simon said, explaining such an action leaves city officials open to being swept up in an expansive lawsuit, potentially exposing the public to sensitive termination details as they are perceived from all sides.
Clarifying Ordinance language
Council members agreed that current ordinance language should be reviewed for consistency, particularly where it addresses the administrator’s authority, council oversight and department head appointments. Simon said conflicting sections should be addressed as the city updates its ordinances.
“You want to make sure that we go in and we address those [conflicting sections],” Simon said.
Budget timeline
The council also reviewed the city administrator’s responsibility to prepare and submit the annual municipal operating and capital budgets. Councilwoman Harpe questioned whether the current June 1 deadline for submitting a proposed budget gives council enough time for revenue review, workshops and public hearings.
Taking her point and acknowledging council’s expressed wish to start work early on the city’s budget, Mayor Abraham made note of the need for change. Continuing to discuss a timeframe, council largely suggested a mid-to-late February start date for the budget, as more data from Bennettsville’s winter revenues would become available by then.
Simon said he felt budget discussions dragged this year due to council becoming quagmired in talks surrounding specific issues and suggested that if council could work through making decisions in certain areas faster, it could alleviate how much time is ultimately spent by council preparing a budget.