SHOULD - AND CAN - MAYOR IRETON MAKE CHANGES AT THE TOP?

In this year’s Salisbury election much support for Jim Ireton was by voters who believe that the city administration is contaminated more broadly than just the mayor’s office. Many voted for Mr. Ireton in order to obtain major changes in the City’s departmental leadership. Their greatest focus is probably on the Police Chief, who is particularly objectionable to many City residents for a variety of reasons, not merely his job performance, including:

1. Continuing to reside a considerable distance from Salisbury
2. Conduct during and after the altercation that occurred between Barrie Tilghman’s daughter and then City Council member Rachel Polk.
3. Harassment of vocal critics of Barrie Tilghman, including the operator of this blog
4. Activist role in Comegy’s campaign for mayor – disputing charges and positions of Mr. Ireton

It is apparent that Chief Webster and Mr. Ireton completely disagree about community policing and the incidence of crime in Salisbury. Immediately upon taking office Barrie discharged then Police Chief Dykes, who was highly regarded by the public, for a matter that only she and a small coterie considered serious. Apparently, the City reached a confidential settlement with Dykes that included his resignation.

In general it is relatively easy to replace the police chief, either by promoting a current City officer or hiring someone from elsewhere with the requisite experience. Law enforcement and the chief’s position are fairly standard across the country. However, there is a rumor that Chief Webster’s contract with the City provides for special benefits (“golden parachute”) if he is terminated – if so, that may protect him from being discharged.

And there is another matter that could protect Chief Webster and other “department heads” from termination by Mayor Ireton – the Salisbury City Charter provides that “all department heads shall serve during good behavior and shall be dischargeable only for cause.” This provision (set forth in full, below) defines what constitutes “cause” and provides for a right to consent by the Council under which the termination decision must be affirmed by at least 3 members for it to become effective.

Whatever it may be, Mayor Ireton’s decision whether to retain or replace Chief Webster or anyone else should be made as soon as possible.

§ SC2-10. Procedure for discharge of certain department heads.

All department heads shall serve during good behavior and shall be dischargeable only for cause. “Cause” is hereby defined to mean either incompetency, inefficiency; neglect of duty; malfeasance, misfeasance; insubordination; habits or traits of character which render retention in employment to be against the public interests; material violation of the City’s drug and/or alcohol use policies as established from time to time; a continuing mental or physical disability of such a nature as to prevent adequate performance of duties (subject to applicable federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals); or any conduct tending to prejudice good government or tending to bring the City, or any agency thereof, into public disrepute.

If the Mayor decides that a department head should be terminated, then the Mayor shall serve a written notice upon the department head at least thirty (30) days in advance of the intended termination date. The written notice shall set forth a brief summary of the cause or causes upon which such termination is based. Within five (5) days after receipt of such notice, the department head may elect to have a hearing on such termination by serving a written notice of such election upon the City Administrator, in which event the department head’s termination shall be deferred until a decision is rendered in connection with the hearing. A hearing before the Mayor and City Council will then be scheduled within twenty (20) days from the date of service of notice of the election by the department head. The hearing shall be closed to the public and be conducted in accordance with such rules and procedures as may be proposed by the Mayor and adopted by the Council, from time to time. Sworn testimony may be provided at that time.

After the conclusion of the hearing, the Mayor and Council may privately deliberate before rendering a decision; provided however, that a written decision must be rendered within five (5) days from the conclusion of the hearing. In order to uphold the termination of the department head, the vote of the Mayor and at least three (3) votes of the Council must be in favor of termination.
The Mayor shall have the power to suspend without pay any department head upon whom a notice of termination has been served pending the outcome of the termination hearing before the Mayor and Council. If the termination is not upheld, nothing herein shall prevent the Mayor from taking other disciplinary action with respect to the department head. [1959 Code, sec. 295] [Added 9-9-57 by Ord. No. 765A as sec. 14A; Amended 5-23-05 by Res. 1247]