Last week's meeting of NorCo Council's "Governnace" Committee was basically an autopsy of its decision to hire a well-qualified fiscal director, but with a lower starting salary than the Executive wanted. Under county law, the Executive lacks this authority when making a political hire. She's required to go to County Council first. Because the salary was too low for the nominated director, she turned the job down.
Council member Jason Boulette had proposed giving Executive Tara Zrinski the authority to negotiate a higher wage, but she rejected this olive branch, insisting incorrectly that she has this authority.
Under county law (Home Rule Charter, Administrative Code and Career Service Regs), the Executive has the power to hire a career service employee at a higher starting rate but lacks this authority for "exempt" (political) positions. Several years ago, former Executive John Brown was chastised when he exceeded his authority to grant raises to political appointments.
Council member Jeff Warren, who previously said he has a "significant" problem with the word "oversight", objected to "constraining" the Executive, even thought that should be an important part of his role. He instead said that "we have seen, unfortunately, members of this body over the years use this dais as a way to constrain the executive."
That's exactly why County Council exists. It's why there are three branches of government. But I guess Warren subscribes to the Donald Trump unitary executive theory.
Council member Kelly Keegan was even more absurd. She started off by suggesting they all should just "take a step back and say, 'You know what, the County Executive is trying to do a good job.'" She called County Council's insistence on following county law "an intentional, vindictive asserting of authority because we can."
Neither Warren nor Keegan have been on Council very long. If they were, they would have seen how then County Exec John Brown flouted the law to give a big raise to a political hire, which would have gone unnoticed but for then Controller Steve Barron.
And that's the point. These constraints exist to prevent the Executive from playing favorites or rewarding political appointees.
Council member Jason Boulette has suggested an ordinance that will give the Exec the authority to make a political hire at a higher rate, but Administrator Mark Aurand said the county wants some time to review it.
Time for this entire council to have a Home Rule Charter 101 study group so they can conduct the business of the county properly.
ReplyDeleteJason Boulette’s wife was recently hired by Tara into a job that she isn’t qualified for at step 3 of the pay scale. Where were Jason’s objections then ?
ReplyDeleteHis wife, who is an exempt (political) employee, was hired by the Controller, not Tara. Because this is not a cabinet position, County Council's assent is not required for the hire itself. However, if she is brought in at step 3 instead of step 1, the law was violated.
Deleteterrible hire
Deletetypical Boulette
DeleteThe point seems to have been missed entirely-AGAIN!
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that County Council had an opportunity to support the County Executive and retain a highly qualified fiscal director. They could have voted yes and allowed the salary adjustment. Instead, Council member Lori Vargo Heffner reminded everyone that Council also had the power to vote no—and that's exactly what happened. AGAIN.
The result? Everyone lost.
The Executive identified and recruited a strong candidate for a critical position, but because Council chose to exercise its authority to block the request rather than approve it, that candidate declined the job. The outcome wasn't accountability—it was an empty office and a return to square one.
If the goal was effective government, it's hard to call this a success. Celebrating the fact that Council asserted its authority ignores the practical consequence: Northampton County is still without the fiscal director it needs.
Yes, Council has oversight responsibilities. No one disputes that. But oversight should be exercised to improve government, not simply to demonstrate that Council has the power to say no. Having the authority to block something doesn't mean blocking it produces a better outcome.
So congratulations to Lori for reminding everyone they could vote no. 👏They did. And now the county has no fiscal director, the qualified candidate is gone, and taxpayers are right back where they started.
That was my point all along. You and I are never going to agree on whether this represents good governance, or on anything. I see a missed opportunity to support a qualified hire and keep county government moving forward. You see a victory for institutional authority. The end result, however, is the same: no hire, no progress, and another search.
Maybe you can reiterate your point to me over and over and over again by mansplaining it, but I don't care.
Kelly Keegan, You believe the law should be ignored if you like the result, just like John Brown was doing as Exec or just like Trump does as President. Lori Vargo Heffner insists that county council follow the law. Oh, by the way, people who constantly use the word "mansplain," as you are now doing, are just trying to silence the correct interpretation of county law, which was laid out to you by your own solicitor.
DeleteBernie isn't "manslaining" anything. You are "bitch-replying" to his point though.
DeleteYou believe the law should be ignored if you like the result, just like John Brown was doing as Exec or just like Trump does as President....or the Biden administration did with immigration law.
DeleteAll caps and exclamation points = the way fifth graders communicate. Grow up, you immature stooge.
DeleteShe is a lefty lunatic wishing death on people
DeleteI wouldn’t want her anywhere near my kid. She may have some kind of Personality Disorder I hope she seeks help.
DeleteOnce a year the exec, it's lawyer, all cabinet heads, and council and their lawyer should be locked in a windowless room with copies of the home rule charter and various other county regs. They should not be allowed out until they can ace a test on all subjects
ReplyDeleteWhy even have an executive and commissioners at this point? Let’s just crown Tara queen and council can be her loyal subjects instead. This is playing out exactly as they thought it would. Any disagreement with the executive by council on anything results in her pouting and tongue lashing. I can’t believe the voters of Northampton County thought she’d be a good executive. It’s clear she’s slapping down anyone who doesn’t fall into line. with what she wants. Sad but some people will do anything just to be and stay an elected official these days in Northampton County. Time to move on to election integrity, Bernie.
ReplyDeleteShe lacks the intelligence & maturity to be an Executive.
DeleteAgree. Just listen to fruits loops at every county council meeting. So immature and is only good at photo ops. Who’s running the county. And that’s the county Executive of Northampton. Pathetic.
DeleteMore wack jobs making decisions for the NC taxpayers. God help us!
ReplyDeleteI agree!
DeleteReading comprehension nor common sense are flowers that grow in Norco's government's garden
ReplyDeleteI wish I had written this. stealing it.
DeleteRecent County elected officials should interview the officials that wrote the original rules of the Northampton County Home Rule Government and find out why those rules exist. They may learn something.
ReplyDeleteCounty Council now known as Commissioners have the real authority and power through "legislation" to run the government. The Executive is the Chief Administrator of the County with very limited powers. The Executive only has the powers granted to him/her by the Charter, The Administrative Code, The Career Service Regulations, and Resolutions passed by the County Commissioners.
The Executive has fewer enumerated powers than County Council. The Home Rule Charter refers to county council as the "governing body." It also grants all residual powers to the county council. The Executive handles day-to-day administrative business. The Exec is in theory less powerful but in practice is more powerful bc it is full-time while the power in county council is spread out among nine part-timers.
ReplyDeleteCounty Council has the power and responsibility to set the wages and salaries of all employees, under the Home Rule Charter.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my opening remarks at the Governance Committee, there have been two major clashes between Council and the Executive over the past 20 years over where our differing powers lie.
In 2008, the Executive issued the new EPM (which included the controversial compensation exceptions clause). Council passed an ordinance requiring future EPM changes to be submitted to the Personnel Commission, and if they rose to the level of regulations, they would then require Council approval. The Executive vetoed this ordinance, Council overturned his veto, he sued Council -- resulting in a Court-negotiated settlement requiring that the Executive submit the updated compensation policy for review. This was never done.
In 2015, the Executive issued a bunch of illegal raises without Council's approval and was forced to back down. The authority cited for those raises was the compensation exceptions clause, which had never been submitted to the Personnel Commission and never approved by Council.
The ordinance I am working on codifies the limited, existing powers the Executive has to issue raises without Council's approval, but otherwise neuters the ability to use the compensation exceptions clause to grant raises that are not specifically enumerated in either the Home Rule Charter, the Administrative Code, or the Career Service Regulations. I do hope that both Council and the Administration will support this, and recognize the need to clear up the ambiguities in the law that resulted in the 2008 and 2015 (and 2026) clashes, because while the Executive has broad authorities, setting wages and salaries is the purview of Council.
Hard cases make bad law. And in this case, the law worked an injustice in that the Fiscal Director obviously needed more money. But as Thomas More once observed, if you chop down all the trees in the forest to get the devil, where will you hide when the devil turns on you? The law, ideally, strives for justice. I view your proposed ordinance as an attempt to achieve that goal.
Delete"Lori Vargo Heffner insists County Council follow the law" is a misleading characterization of what actually happened.
ReplyDeleteThe County Executive brought the candidate forward at that salary step. County Council had the authority to vote on the appointment, and if Council had approved it, no laws would have been broken. Instead of considering the candidate on her qualifications and the recommendation presented, a majority chose to follow Lori Vargo Heffner's amendment to reduce the salary; not because it was legally required, but to make a political point.
The result? After months without a fiscal director, difficulty attracting qualified candidates because of low pay, and finally finding someone willing to leave her current position and even take a pay cut, Council created yet another obstacle.
This wasn't about "following the law." It was about choosing obstruction over solving a problem the county has been struggling with for months.
You should shut up while you are as behind as you are. No sense in getting farther behind.
DeleteThat's a fair point.
DeleteLori got the most votes LOL that must drive you nuts!!!
DeleteThanks Bernie for flushing out Koo Koo this year!
ReplyDeleteLong time reader, first time commenting. Just wanted to call Keegan a dumb bitch. Love the blog by the way.
ReplyDeleteThere’s no opinion I disrespect more than Keegan’s
ReplyDeleteIt's time for a government study commission ballot question. We would be much better served by 3 or 5 Commissioners and an appointed County Manager. Let's elect the Sherrif while we're at it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's get rid of the obstructionists so our county can move forward!
DeleteHow pathetic that our elected officials take swipes at each other on this blog. Maybe find a summer job, Kelly.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the person that turned down the job for what was it, a $9000 difference, good riddance. She turned down sick time, personal time, vacation time, health benefits, retirement, no lay offs like the private sector and if she did a good job, a new executive when elected wouldn't get rid of her. She wanted the money only and that leads one to believe she had no long term desire to stay with the county and enjoy the benefits of county employment. 2nd, with all the non-sense going on in the county, what qualified worker would want to take this on. It is a sign of how the job would go. Piece of advice to council members, keep mouth shut, listen, learn, be humble, share your strengths and in the right forum.
ReplyDelete