Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 02 09 Regular - Kruppenbacher Termination I want to talk about an issue that will not go away until it is resolved. This concerns the office of the Mayor and his responsibilities as it pertains to the City Attorney and the City Clerk appointments. This is for the people of Winter Springs and my duty as their elected Mayor to uphold the Charter. I ask the City Commission for their help and consideration on this issue. As background and to clarify the city commission's general powers according to Section 4.06. General powers and duties. All powers of the city shall be vested in the commission, except as otherwise provided by law or this Charter, and the commission shall provide for the exercise thereof and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed on the city by law. The Charter is the law of the City; the City Commission must obey the charter and not make their own interpretations. As part of the Charter, it spells out very clearly the responsibilities of the Commission and the mayor and other officers of the city. I as the Chief Executive Officer of this city have a responsibility to make sure the charter is followed and that those responsibilities given to the mayor are followed. Specifically there are charter responsibilities or ordinances in place that allow officials of this city to do certain responsibilities. From the Mayor's standpoint that includes unilaterally vetoing ordinances, appointing a city clerk and a city attorney. That also includes many more activities in times of emergency. There are no ordinances that say officials of the city should not follow the city charter. In fact, legally, it cannot be done. Now let's make another thing very clear. I care only that people of this city get proper service from their local government. As it pertains to the City Clerk, Margo is working hard. As it pertains to the City Attorney we have not seen him regularly since mid summer. In fact the last time I saw him was at the December commission meeting. This is unfair to the people. Further, with the help of many attorneys, including a lawyer who argued these issues in front of the Supreme Court. The meaning of the power to appoint by the Mayor and approved by the City commission gives the mayor the implicit right to remove. Case law shows.. ."in the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary, legal terms in a statute are presumed to have been used in their legal sense. In this setting, terms such as "complete hiring authority," like terms such as the "right to hire" or "the power of appointment", have traditionally carried with them just such a particular legal meaning. Inclusive in that meaning is that when an individual has been vested with such hiring or appointing power, he has also be given equal fIring authority. Perhaps the earliest and most influential are the United States Supreme Court decisions dealing with the President's appointment powers. In Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President is vested with the power to appoint officers, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate (sound familiar). Notwithstanding the fact that Article II nowhere specifically gives the President the power to remove his officers, the Supreme ~ . . ~ Court rules more than 150 years ago that the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment....This implicit removal power has been reconfIrmed on several occasions since then. Moreover, and perhaps because of the Supreme Court's early interpretations of the President's appointment and removal powers of Article II, the general rule throughout this country is that the power to hire necessarily and implicitly carries with it the power to . frre. ...(Even though no express reference was made in statute to power to fire, the power to hire existed because the "power to appoint carries with it the power ofremoval)...("the power of removal is regarded as incident to the power of appointment").. .No authority to the contrary has been located." This was also opined to me by every attorney I spoke to, (including the person who handled the issue at the Supreme Court) except Messrs. Kruppenbacher and Guthrie. Frank's explanation on why he couldn't do his job was clear. This was very ably explained to us by City Manager McLemore, in fact Ron suggested to Frank that he get more help. That's fme but that did not mean he was relieved of his duties as City Attorney. I know I did not appoint Bob Guthrie. Regardless, Frank is not coming to our city commission meetings and that is a primary responsibility. To allow other associates to do the primary portion of the job is not what we hired Frank to do. The three issues 1 The Mikes suit 2. Will pick Mike Jones 3. I want the input of the City Commissioner. The failsafe of the system. Because whoever The Mayor appoints has to be approved by the Commission. My responsibilities here as Mayor is to serve the People who elected me I have been empowered to act and I will. Effective immediately based on the responsibility given to me by the charter and clarified by the various organizations. Frank Kruppenbacher is being officially frred immediately as city attorney. Tom Lang has offered to act as our acting city attorney and Bob Guthrie can work with him until this issue is done. Furthermore several other top attorneys have offered to help with city matters until we hire a new city attorney. As for my new appointment, I want the city commissioners to give me input on criteria and people. I am willing to listen to any reasonable process that gets us a qualified attorney that we can all agree to.