At last week's Northampton County Council meeting,Executive Tara Zrinski spurned what I will call an "olive branch" resolution that would give her authority to negotiate an appropriate salary for a Fiscal Director. The county has gone without a Fiscal Director since Zrinski assumed office in January. In June, she nominated Deb Watlington, a CPA with 30 years of accounting experience, as the county's new Fiscal Director. County Council conformed her, but at a lower starting salary - $109,632 - than the $125,108 proposed by Executive Tara Zrinski. As a result, Watlington withdrew.
Zrinski chastised Council, insisting that she, and not Council, has the authority to set the pay. She complained of an "increasingly adversarial dynamic between council and the administration, particularly when it manifests in ways that complicate routine governance functions. It's neither warranted nor productive. Effective government requires mutual respect, adherence to defined roles, and a shared commitment to outcomes over objects."
She went on to argue that negotiating a salary for the Fiscal Director is her role, and her role alone. So she was unwilling to accept an olive branch resolution prepared by Council member Jason Boulette that would have given her the authority to negotiate a salary.
After her lecture, and despite Council President Ken Kraft's attempt to stop him. Council member Dave Holland asked Council Solicitor Matt Deschler whether Council had acted appropriately by setting the salary at a lower rate than that negotiated by Zrinski.
"Council acted appropriately." responded Deschler. "I can expand, but that's my conclusion."
Kraft acknowledged that while Council did have the authority to reduce the salary, "it was a rotten thing to do."
Boulette later withdrew his olive branch resolution. He would have hired Watlington at the salary proposed by Zrinski.
In an email, he explains that his resolution was "a fair compromise. My resolution reaffirmed that County Council is the body with the power and responsibility to set the salaries and wages of employees, but temporarily extended to the Executive the ability to negotiate with potential hires at Step 4 for the Director of Fiscal Affairs position. I believe I could have gotten 5 votes for this resolution.
"I was disappointed the Administration attacked the resolution as strongly as they did. They made it clear that they did not want the temporary authority this resolution would have extended to them, so I pulled it.
"I disagree with the Executive's position that Council can only approve or reject nominees without any say in their salary. The Home Rule Charter clearly gives us this power. My resolution will not be the end of this discussion. We will go into this matter more thoroughly at my Governance Committee meeting on July 15th."
21 comments:
TZ is more than in over her head. She is lost in the wilderness of reality. However, it does not help that she has to deal with a council that instead of being leaders act like bickering 13-year-olds.
It seems like the executive and legislative branches are just natural enemies, like cats and dogs, democrats and republicans, and the irish and the irish.
She wants to be a woke authoritarian. We had enough of that insanity during CoViD. She needs to be brought and kept in line. She's too stupid and immature to run things. It didn't take long for council to figure this out.
Who would take a job at Step 4? That is what Jason is proposing, right?
Ya’ get what ya’ pay for, by and large.
Remember when taking a "public service job" wasn't about a 20K difference in pay? When the people of the county can barely make ends meet...shameful
Let me get this straight. Zrinski thinks she has the authority to set salaries, and council disagrees. Later, a council member is willing to put forth a resolution to let her what she wants in the case of the finance director.
Zrinski then refuses the resolution allowing her to negotiate the salary of the finance director.
That tells me that Zrinski is on a whole new level of stupid, or that the money wasn’t the real reason that Watlington turned down the job and Zrinski is trying to hide what it is.
Whichever one of those it is, one thing is certain: Zrinski (not council) is now the reason that Watlington isn’t here, and the position remains unfilled
Actually, Zrinski quotes from or paraphrases a letter or email from watlington stating that she was turning the job down bc she would be unable to work with Council.
Tara Zrinski fininally gows a pair:
"Zrinski chastised Council, insisting that she, and not Council, has the authority to set the pay. She complained of an "increasingly adversarial dynamic between council and the administration, particularly when it manifests in ways that complicate routine governance functions. It's neither warranted nor productive. Effective government requires mutual respect, adherence to defined roles, and a shared commitment to outcomes over objects."
Now if Tara could only get this message through to Lower Saucon Council, especially Priscilla Deleon. For years, in not decades, that Council has not only violated rules of respect, ADHERENCE TO DEFINED ROLES, and de eloped a shared commitment to outcomes over personal objectives, but has (in many cases) sabotaged the efforts of Every Department's Administration. It is not unusual for one particular Council member to call the Township a dozen times per day to Manage and direct orders to Adminstration.
I don't know why anybody in their right mind would work for this Council after what they did to Watlington
Being told you're not worth it is hard to hear. Telling the executive her spending is too much, is hard to do. Life is hard. Wear a cup.
Then she wasn’t the right person for the job. The Fiscal Office and the person heading it should be politically neutral. They are there to present the unbiased numbers.
Watlington had no previous government experience, and this is where it shows. Interacting with Council - and the public - is an integral part of the job.
NorCo likely dodged a bullet here.
"gowing a pair" [sic] is a very sexist remark
Jason is right and wrong here, It is the Council’s duty to determine whether an appointment is qualified for the position. If the candidate does not meet the requisite qualifications, the Council may reject the appointment.
David’s inquiry to the solicitor regarding the Council’s authority to reduce the salary was unnecessary. The Council plainly has the authority to determine that the proposed salary is excessive for an appointed position. The question reflected a misunderstanding of the Council’s role and discretion.
No one contended that the Council exceeded its authority by reducing the salary. Kraft’s objection concerned the manner in which the reduction was handled, not the Council’s legal authority to make the adjustment.
Jason said this proposal was what the county needed. But the moment Tara didn't support it, he withdrew it instead of standing behind it and making the case for why it deserved to pass. If it was truly that important, why give up so quickly? Same old politics from this County Council.
"If it was truly that important, why give up so quickly? Same old politics from this County Council."
Believe it or not (I'm sure you won't, and that's fine), this wasn't about playing politics. My resolution was an attempt at a compromise that I hoped would be amenable to both Council and the Administration. If you watch the speech from the Executive at the start of the meeting, you'll see the attempt clearly wasn't successful. So I didn't see any benefit in forcing it to a vote. That would have escalated things when my goal had been the opposite.
I'll take my lumps for this attempt at a compromise not succeeding.
My goal is to work with both my fellow Council members AND the Administration at moving the county forward. But I'm also not willing to back down on asserting Council's powers under the Home Rule Charter. Hence my comment to Bernie that we'd be discussing this issue more at the next Governance Committee meeting (this coming Wednesday).
It’s the end
My goal is to work with both my fellow Council members AND the Administration at moving the county forward. But I'm also not willing to back down on asserting Council's powers under the Home Rule Charter. Hence my comment to Bernie that we'd be discussing this issue more at the next Governance Committee meeting (this coming Wednesday).
Even if you don't understand the HRC you will force your will and your interpretation of the HRC at the governance committee. maybe instead of reading all the old minutes you can invite one of the people who wrote the home rule charter so you can stop misinterpreting it and ask questions.
Why don't you share what you feel I've misinterpreted, since you know so much about what I plan to go over at Governance already?
Jason, I believe what really bothers this person is the fact that you are a Democrat. Thus, everything you do must be wrong or evil. We live in an age of partisanship.
I have deleted a comment submitted by someone who quotes a Council member as having made a statement that she never made. It's an obvious and knowing lie.
Post a Comment