Robyn Still, Marathon City Council Member, joined Good Morning Keys on Keys Talk 96.9/102.5FM this morning to talk about what’s going on in the city.
George Garrett, city manager of Marathon, was terminated last night with two dissenting votes, one being from Still and one being from Lynn Landry.
Council Member Kenny Matlock brought forth the vote that was not originally on the agenda.
Still said, “It was not on the agenda. He originally added it as an add on to the agenda last night, and he phrased it as a performance review. I spoke up, and I said that that was not notice to the public, and that I had heard a lot of comments out in the public, and that I knew that there were people who wanted to be there but couldn’t. I would have liked to have seen it tabled until the March meeting, not to put it off. It was a conversation that obviously needed to happen, but I wanted to make sure that our residents and anybody who felt one way or another had the opportunity to be present, to hear what was said and to make comments if they wanted to. What happened last night directly impacts our community, every resident, every property owner, definitely going to be directly impacted. And I have concerns. I don’t know how it went from we’re just going to do a performance review to a motion to fire him, but that’s exactly what happened.”
Was there a reason given during any of the discussions about this?
Still said, “Absolutely not. In fact, I asked council member Matlock what that reason was. I think the public needed to know. I certainly needed to know. Knowing a reason would have impacted my vote one way or another, if there was proof of wrongdoings. Obviously I wanted to know that. I think the public needed to know that as well. But he refused to give any explanation. I don’t remember his exact terminology, but to me, it equated the same as pleading the fifth. He was afraid he’d get into legal trouble, or the city might get in legal trouble if he went into those reasonings. He did invite members of the public to call him if they wanted to know what the reasons were. And I also questioned that, why was it okay to talk one on one to individuals and he wouldn’t mention these reasons in a public forum? But he absolutely refused to list any reasons whatsoever. So other than rumors in the dark of any concrete reasons, I would have liked to have heard that, but right now, like everybody else, all I know is what I’ve heard rumor mill, and I don’t put a lot of stock into that. As council members, we are not supposed to be having discussions outside of an announced meeting. So I couldn’t ask him now, or I can’t ask him later about anything like that. But I would like to know a reason. I think it’s important. He refused to give any reasoning why. And like I said, I think that’s really important to know. I was having to make a very serious vote. We were being asked to make a serious vote, and I think we needed to know some reasoning why. We didn’t get that. So the vote happened. Obviously, George got terminated. I think that’s a huge detriment to our city. He has institutional knowledge of our city, of the county. We have some serious projects that are going on, the deep wells. It’s very controversial, I know, but we’re under a court order to get that done, and we’re mandated on a timeline, and George knows that project inside and out, and if we don’t make that deadline, we face contempt of court, further fines. There’s a lot of ramifications to what just happened. From what I can tell, there’s no plan that’s in place. Council Member Matlock said there was a plan, but I’m not sure how that’s possible without having a city meeting or with council in an announced meeting to have a plan. If he has a plan, he didn’t announce that. So right now, George Garrett can stay for 30 days before that termination is final. He doesn’t have to stay. He could simply say, this morning, I’m not going to go to work, and he wouldn’t have to go to work. There is a severance package. I don’t know what that is. The city attorney is going to work on that. It could be a big check, I don’t know.”
The new mayor Lynny Del Gaizo and Debra Struyf both voted in favor of termination. Did they give a reason?
Still said, “I don’t recall them giving a reason. If they did, I think I was in shock about what was happening, but I don’t recall a reason given from them as well.”
Lynn Landry voted no on the termination, as did Still.
She said, “If there is good cause, if there’s reasoning, I think that was something that’s important, that everybody should have known, and by everybody, not just the public, but council members, because we were having to make a serious vote that impacts every one of us individually, everybody who owns property, everybody who lives in our city. I just think reasons why are very, very important, and to make a good, informed decision, you need those reasons, and we didn’t have them. And like I said, if there was something concrete, something that could be proven, not a rumor, I think then that might have impacted my vote. But right now, there’s nothing, and I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing. Obviously everybody knows George has his faults. He over commits. He wants to do what’s best for our community. We’ve had a lot of problems with communication from City Hall. Those are all issues that could have been dealt with in performance review. And my experience with performance reviews are you talk about strengths and weaknesses, you talk about shortcomings, you talk to that employee about your expectations and what you expect of them. You set those expectations, and you ask that employee what they plan to do to meet them. And then you have a review after that, you have a period of time to come up to par, and then you make decisions. You don’t automatically advance from review to no reasoning to fired. And that’s just my personal experience, and I may be wrong, but that’s been my experience in government careers in the past.”
Could any other council members make a motion to reinstate Garrett at some point?
Still said, “My understanding is that the only people who could do that is the person who made the initial motion, or the person who seconded the motion. If you’re on the losing end of the vote, I don’t think you can bring that back. I would have to check with the city attorney. I could be wrong, but that’s been my understanding in the past, is that the only way that could be brought back would have to be by one of those two individuals. But I’m going to ask the city attorney that. There’s a lot of questions that have to be asked. Where do we go from here? How do we move forward? And we have to figure that out. We’re obviously going to have another meeting to figure out how to go forward, who’s going to sit in that seat when George has his last day.”
Citizen input is very important, too.
Still said, “Whether they agree or disagree with my point of view, I want to hear from both sides. That’s very important. You want to make an informed decision. And council member Matlock last night said that it was our decision. Well, we represent those people. Those are our constituents. We represent them. We need to hear what they have to say. And last night, we did have some citizens that did come both for and against. We had citizens who spoke highly of George, but also acknowledged some of those shortcomings that I talked about, but also said that on a performance review, just like I’d said, you give that person the opportunity to meet your expectations, and they have a timeline, and it would be incumbent on them to come up to par. And that didn’t happen last night, and there was no reasoning given so this morning and all of last night and as I was walking my dogs this morning, I’m just lost as to where do we go from here? And, I mean, I would like to know some reasonings why? Don’t get me wrong, I will respect the decision that’s made. I don’t have to like it, but the votes that were for termination, they were elected, those council members were elected, and I will respect that. I don’t have to like it, I don’t have to agree with it, but that’s the decision, and we have to move forward together, not divided, because division is going to get us nowhere. So whether I like it or not, we have to move forward as a group, cohesively, looking for what’s best for our city, and not personal vendettas. I just want your listeners to know that even if they disagreed with my vote, I still represent you. I’m still going to listen. We can agree to disagree. Our views are not wrong. They’re just different. But we have to work together, and leave feelings behind. Let’s talk about logic, and let’s logically move forward. Regardless of how I feel about this, we need to think about our city. If there was something, I would have liked to have heard, but not answering a question, in my past experience, you answered the question, and when I asked for what are the reasons? Help me understand? Nobody helped me understand. Nobody was willing to do that. It was completely shut down. I just want to urge people, let’s do away with the Facebook rumor mill. Let’s all come together. Regardless of how you feel about last night’s vote, we have to think about our city. That’s what’s the most important, our residents and our city, and that is what we need to do. I know there are different feelings. Obviously, I have a different opinion. I’m confused about everything. I’m not very happy about it. But at the end of the day, what the most important thing is, is our city and helping our city move forward and not causing harm or problems to our city. And thank you, George Garrett, for your service to our communities. It has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.”