Someone needs to explain to me what all the fuss is about.
|
The City Council chose not to renew Eric Williams’ contract. When the motion was introduced, Elissa Yount even quoted the North Carolina general statute that states that the manager serves at the pleasure of the council.
In short, the manager may be let go without cause. I think that sucks for anyone, but it’s the law. Let’s assume that Williams knew this when he took the job way back in the 20th century. There was a discussion after Yount made her motion. Every council member had an opportunity to say what he or she wanted to say, both for and against. As far as has been reported, no one argued for Williams’ to go. To the contrary, Lonnie Davis gave reasons as to why he should stay. Garry Daeke offered what I thought was an extremely valid reason not to have the vote, that being that he did not have enough information to consider the motion. |
 |
|
When it came to a vote, five eighths of the council voted to not continue Williams’ employ with the city. Apparently, he failed to pleasure them. What more was there to say? Williams himself didn’t say a word. How does a vote taken in the broad daylight of public scrutiny constitute a conspiracy, especially a vote with a clear majority? If Williams had resigned without warning, that might stink of conspiracy. If the brakes suddenly failed in his city-maintained car, then conspiracy theorists might have a point. But a public vote construed as a conspiracy? If this is conspiracy in action, then this new “shadow government” council has a lot to learn about keeping to the shadows. I can’t help but notice that nine people were voted into office in October. How did all of those residents decide to vote for the candidates who won unless they talked about it in advance? Let’s demand an investigation into this voting conspiracy immediately! What’s that? Majority rules? Who knew. Yount called a lawyer. Big deal. Exactly who should she have contacted to determine if the motion she was planning was legal? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of lawsuits, I’m told. Many are pointing to the termination procedure that Yount developed to facilitate the removal of Williams from City Hall as evidence of malice. There are training videos for corporate types that I have seen with my own eyes that detail the steps to take when terminating an employee. They have several features in common: do it fast, retrieve company property, and show the former employee the door. It’s not possible to predict how someone will react when deprived of his or her livelihood. Williams was treated quite well at his termination, probably better than others who have been terminated by the city have been treated. I’ve been to the movies, so I know that when a cop is fired, the first thing they ask for is his/her gun and badge. They are not asked to surrender these things out of malice, necessarily, but because they are objects of enormous power. Is the city’s credit card any less powerful? Am I the only one who’s not surprised that council members elected on a platform of change changed something? I think I know what’s confusing everybody. For once, someone in Henderson followed the rules. You know, rules, those things that they have to follow but you can bend when you need to. Yeah, rules. The truth is that lots of people serve in Henderson and elsewhere at the pleasure of their employers. Deputies, for example, serve at the pleasure of the sheriff. A new sheriff could send them packing in favor of his own people for no reason at all. Probationary teachers have one-year contracts, the renewal of which is at the pleasure of the school board. Deputies and teachers do not have six months of severance to cushion the blow, nor do they get a press release. Do you? |
|