The Drozed saga continued last week, showing strains between the Administration and the City Council.
Read all about it here and here.
Where to start?
Mr. Drozd is responsible for his actions and must suffer the consequences. He has suffered those consequences. He no longer has a job. It is doubtful that too many would disagree with the ultimate outcome.
Of more concern is how the Administration handled this matter from the beginning. The Administration has gone out of its way to unecessarily embarass Drozd's sister-in-law, Councilwoman Marge DerGurahian, one of their own. Harry and the gang are living examples that the ability to get votes in no way ensures any degree of class or dignity.
Initially, the Drozd matter was discussed in Executive Session. Unfortunately, someone felt the need to contact the television media about the session. Thus, beginning the circus.
After the session, Council President Bauer informed us that his only comment would be that Mr. Drozd resigned. However, there was an 8-0 vote in Executive Session to terminate Mr. Drozd.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, talk began about whether Mr. Drozd was entitled to unused vacation pay. According to City Policy (the policy for non-represented employees) such accrued vacation time is forfeit if the employee is terminated for disciplinary reasons.
Somehow a resolution is placed on last Thursday night's Agenda which would grant Mr. Drozd his unused vacation pay. But what a resolution! It's like no resolution we've ever seen and it may violate Executive Session rules of confidentiality. The resolution was withdrawn.
The Council looks bad here. That's partly their own fault but they received some help from the Administration.
Before we deal with this mess later in the week, we merely ask a few questions:
Mr. Bauer, was Mr. Drozd terminated or did he resign?
Which leads us to this question? If there was an 8-0 vote, did that vote violate Open Meetings Law? If, so, does another vote have to take place in conformity with Open Meetings Law or can the initial vote be somehow adopted as if it took place in an Open Meeting?
Why was the resolution drafted in such a way as to reveal the process (as opposed to the result) of an Executive Session?
Is the Non-Rep policy that would be violated if Drozd is given vacation pay the same Non-Rep policy that is "out of date" with regard to the new auditor's pay rate?
Finally, will Bauer wrest control of the Council back from the Administration so it can function as an independent branch of government or will it remain a non-binding advisory board for the mayor?
Later this week:
More on how the City handled the Drozd matter (unless we're bored with it);
Negotiations between the PBA and the City on a contract for the police.