IS JIM IRETON DERELICT IN DUTY?

I was glad that he was elected last year, but never took seriously his promise of competent governance and change in the administration of the City. That slogan “help is on the way” seems a sophomoric sing-song to me, and I am not disappointed in those regards. But I did believe that his oath of office was genuine and would be honored without fail. In that regard I’m disappointed, despite his dealings with the police chief from hell, because of his failure to address an apparent violation of the Charter, which expressly prohibits City personnel from making a contract if sufficient funds for the particular purpose have not been duly appropriated by the Council.

On October 27, 2009 – the day after the Council approved a bid for a new dump truck -- Councilwoman Cohen realized that a budget amendment was needed and sent an e-mail message to that effect to the City Administrator, John Pick, with copies to the City’s purchasing officer (Pamela Oland) and also to the Mayor. Without first obtaining an amendment, Ms Oland proceeded with the purchase documentation, and on November 6 that contract was submitted to the vendor, after first being signed by Louise Smith, the Council’s president, and also by Ms. Oland and by the City Attorney, Paul Wilber, who signified that the contract was proper both as to its form and its “legality”. Ten days later, on November 16, Pick sent a message to Ms. Cohen stating that a budget amendment was required in order to purchase the truck.

Almost two more months passed until a budget amendment was presented to the Council at its meeting on January 11, 2010. On that date, when asked if the truck had been ordered, Ms. Oland said that she didn’t know, and neither Wilber nor Pick said anything in response to that question. Ms. Cohen and Ms. Campbell felt that information should be presented before voting on the budget amendment, which requires a 4-vote approval, and it failed. Another month passed before the truck was delivered to and accepted by the City in mid-February, but the budget has not been amended at this late date.

Ireton and others are clearly incompetent in this episode, but their behavior may go well beyond that. Both he and Oland should have realized at the outset that a budget amendment was needed and submitted an ordinance in a timely manner. Upon receiving Ms. Cohen’s warning, they should have promptly proceeded with an ordinance but failed to do so.

But the more serious aspect of this saga is the execution of the contract and submission thereof to the vendor despite the warning and failure to first obtain a budget amendment. The Charter provision mentioned above makes such action a “misdemeanor” and states that upon conviction a person “shall cease to hold his office or employment.” The mayor, unless he actively pressed for the contract to be signed and delivered, probably could not be prosecuted or discharged, but that may not be so in the case of other City officials.

Ms Oland, one of the officials that Ms. Cohen warned, was thereafter involved in the contractual process and signed the contract – despite being warned by the e-mail message. Mr. Wilber was not an addressee of the e-mail, but had an obligation to perform due diligence before approving its “legality”, but exactly what action he took is unknown. And John Pick’s role as the “chief of staff” is of interest. Louise Smith, unless she believed that the contract was not “legal” when she signed it, appears not to be culpable – she simply signified that it had been “approved” by the Council.

Having become cognizant of the facts, if he were not previously, Mr. Ireton has a duty of office to address any violation of the Charter or state law that has occurred. It can’t be dismissed as an innocent misunderstanding or inadvertent error. There are public policy reasons to require proper budgetary appropriation of public funds, and this episode follows a similar one, involving these same City officials and “the Bricks” property, that occurred very shortly after Ireton took office.

So far – taking Mr. Ireton’s pledge of transparency at face value – it seems that he has done nothing. If he decides, or has already decided, not to refer this situation to the State’s Attorney, the residents of Salisbury deserve an explanation.