Warrenton city leaders are weathering critical questions over proposals to change the qualifications for city administrator and to hire a specialty law firm as employment law advisors.
At issue …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, or you are a print subscriber who had access to our previous wesbite, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you have not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber and did not have a user account on our previous website, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
Warrenton city leaders are weathering critical questions over proposals to change the qualifications for city administrator and to hire a specialty law firm as employment law advisors.
At issue are legislative bills that were first introduced during the Warrenton Board of Aldermen’s July 20 public meeting, and which were voted on this week.
One of those bills, in its original version, proposed to reduce the prior work experience requirement for city administrator from five years of prior experience down to three years. It also would loosen a residency requirement, allowing an administrator to live within 15 miles of Warrenton City Hall, rather than within 10 miles.
Although aldermen quickly removed the experience requirement change from the bill after beginning discussion, it had already kindled concerns over the qualifications of current City Administrator Brandie Walters. Several local residents asked whether Walters meets the requirement of five years of public administration experience or relevant bachelor’s degree that are called for in city ordinance.
“If the city administrator’s work experience satisfied the qualification in the code prior to her hiring, what possible explanation is there for a bill that proposed lowering the qualification?” asked Josh Poore, a self-directed local government watchdog and author of the Liberty in Warren County Facebook page. Poore has been critical of the city government’s decision to elevate an internal candidate to replace retired City Administrator Terri Thorn, without conducting an outside candidate search.
Poore framed the proposed qualification changes as “an attempt to make someone retroactively qualified.”
Prior to her promotion to city administrator, Walters was Warrenton’s director of operations since 2018, and assistant director of operations before that.
Alderman Steven Cullom, who was elected this year, said in July that he doesn’t agree with how the administrator selection was handled, but that he supports Walters.
“(Walters) does an amazing job and I feel she is qualified to do the job that she does,” Cullom said.
Alderman Bob Delaloye said the change to the administrator experience requirement was included in the bill by mistake, and that board members had previously determined that Walters’ work history satisfied the city’s requirements. Delaloye led aldermen in a vote to remove that change from the bill on July 20, ahead of final discussion and vote to change the residency requirement on Aug. 3.
Alderman Larry Corder, who was elected this year after Walters’ selection as administrator, said he disagrees with criticism over how Walters was selected.
“Every good organization will have a succession plan, and that (Walters) was there shows that the city has done what they should have done. They had someone there ready to backfill for every position,” Corder said.
Aldermen voted 6-0 Aug. 3 to change the city administrator residency requirement to living within 15 miles of city hall.
The second bill garnering some pushback is a measure to contract with a specialty law firm to answer questions of employment law on an as-needed basis. The law firm, McMahon Berger, would only bill the city when called upon to provide assistance, according to the proposed agreement.
When the bill was introduced in July, some aldermen questioned why it was necessary when the city already has an attorney on retainer.
City Attorney Christopher Graville said the firm will provide particular expertise for complex employment law and federal compliance questions that only come up once or twice a year. He compared consulting with the firm to someone having both a general practice doctor and a specialist, adding that he has already gotten informal consultations from McMahon Berger in the past.
By consulting directly with the firm when needed, Graville said the city could get important questions answered more quickly, and also save money by not having to pay for Graville’s time to do lengthy research.
“The city could pay me to do it, but what may take me 15 hours of research is typically a 15 minute phone call with people who are really well versed and do this every day,” Graville commented.
With that explanation, aldermen voted 6-0 to approve a service agreement with McMahon Berger.