Village Manager Vote Could Be Tonight

Since the election in April changed the face of the , it’s been the hottest topic of discussion. Tonight, trustees finally may take action on the issue of the village manager's powers and duties.

The board has called a special meeting for 6:30 this evening, with the goal of hashing out exactly how much authority the village manager should have to hire, fire and spend without board approval.

As it stands now, the manager has hiring and firing ability, as long as the board is notified within 30 days of such actions, and can enter into contracts of $10,000 or less without the board’s say-so. But several trustees believe that is too much authority, and would like to see some of that returned to the board.

Trustees have proposed several options for reducing the village manager powers, but the one most likely to receive a vote tonight is labeled Version 2B. Originally drafted by Trustee Stan Bond, and amended by several of his colleagues, this ordinance would make several significant changes to the law, including:

• The title "village manager" would be changed to "village administrator." Village Attorney Steve Andersson has said this is purely a cosmetic change and has no bearing on the actual duties of the office.
• The administrator would be able to make recommendations for staff hiring and firing decisions, but could not act on them without board approval. Additionally, the power to add or remove department heads, or to create or dissolve village departments, would rest with the board.
• The administrator would provide regular employee evaluations to the board.
• The administrator would not be able to give pay raises, or institute pay cuts, beyond those accounted for in the budget without board approval.
• The administrator would be mandated to inform the board of any grievances filed by union employees within five days of receiving them.

Version 2B also contains a paragraph on ethics, drafted by Bond. It specifically states that the administrator refrain from using the office, or village time and resources, to “influence the election or appointment of any board, clerk, or commission position within the village of Montgomery.”

Trustee Matt Brolley has pointed out that village managers already must comply with the ethical standards of the International City/Council Management Association.

Bond said he is happy with the language in Version 2B, and would support passing that tonight. The issue, he said, is the balance of power between the board and the manager’s office, and described the trust between the two as “average at best.”

Trustees Pete Heinz and Andy Kaczmarek said they likely would support Version 2B as well. But Brolley said he has issues with it — Version 2B alters the power structure of the village, ending the requirement that all department heads report to the manager. Brolley said that would be a mistake and could impact village services.

Additionally, he said, giving the board hiring and firing authority over every staff member and mandating that performance reviews come to the board is “micromanaging on the most basic level.”

Other trustees could not be reached for comment Monday.

That version of the ordinance does not address the spending power — that authority is granted by a separate law, and Bond believes it should get a separate discussion. Several trustees have offered their own opinions on it — Kaczmarek would like to see the manager’s limit reduced to $2,000, while Brolley wants to see it upped to $20,000, with a stipulation that three quotes be obtained for any contract over $10,000.

Village Manager Anne Marie Gaura provided a survey of 25 Illinois communities, many within a 20-mile radius of Montgomery, and the spending authority granted to their village managers/administrators. Six of those communities grant $5,000, six of them $10,000, 12 of them $20,000, and one $30,000.

Gaura also provided the board with a breakdown of the contracts she has independently entered into for the past three years, a list that totals out to just over $278,954. Gaura authorized $106,889 in agreements in fiscal 2010, $90,232 in fiscal 2011, and $81,832 so far in fiscal 2012, which started on June 1.

Most of the 2012 contracts, she said, are related to the recent Montgomery Fest. In the previous two fiscal years, Gaura’s independent authorizations have amounted to 2.4 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively, of the total budget.

Dropping that authority to $2,000, she wrote, "would have extremely negative effects on the village’s ability to conduct daily business and provide service in the public works department." Most of the contracts are for routine services, but some are for critical repairs, and should there be an emergency, Gaura said, the village would need an expedited approval process to respond quickly.

Bond disagreed, noting that the law already allows the village president to assume emergency powers. He said he couldn’t find anything on Gaura’s list that couldn’t wait a week for board approval.

For Bond, though, it is not the amount of the spending authority that matters, it is the process, and he believes the board should at least have the ability to scrutinize the contracts.

“Whether the board chooses to get involved is up to them,” he said, “but the option should be there.”

For Brolley, questions remain. He said the board should “remove personal conflicts from the equation” before making a decision tonight, because changing the ordinance sets the tone for the future of the manager/administrator position.

“All of these changes, they have this underlying tone of ‘somebody did something wrong,’ and no one has come forward to say what that is,” he said. “I have asked the board numerous times, what is at issue here?”

“If there is an issue, I want to hear about it, and then we can absolutely change things,” he said.

Tonight’s meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is open to the public.