The vacant service director saga continues in St. Clairsville at least for another week.
Council members spent an hour in executive session Monday discussing the base pay rate of $78,000 along with a “credited” three weeks’ vacation effective as of the starting date.
This came after council met Wednesday for a special meeting called specifically for such a discussion, only that discussion never took place.
Councilmembers Frank Sabatino, John Bukmir and Linda Jordan voted no against entering executive session for that very discussion. The motion carried 4-3, but it wasn’t enough of a majority to allow the executive session to commence.
Councilmembers Beth Oprisch and Terra Butler both expressed their frustration at the result of the vote given the stated purpose of the meeting.
Flash forward to Monday, when the agenda turned to ordinances and resolutions, Sabatino still was of the opinion the information was already made public and that it should be discussed on the floor.
Sabatino had issue with the starting salary, along with the three weeks’ vacation Greenwood would be credited with upon hiring.
“When (Finance Director) Annette (Williams) came to St. Clairsville, she previously worked for a public entity,” Sabatino said. “In section four of her resolution, she was credited with two weeks of vacation effective immediately.
“But Mr. Greenwood’s states he is credited with three, but he didn’t work for an entity. He’s coming from a private business. That is wrong.”
Previously, Sabatino stated he didn’t have a problem with Greenwood as a person, nor with his qualifications. But being a business owner, he didn’t feel Greenwood would have the time to dedicate to the full-time position of being the city’s service director.
Not for Open Discussion
Before Sabatino could delve further into his objections, he was interrupted by Law Director Elizabeth Glick.
“Frank, these are personnel issues that I would recommend be discussed in executive session,” Glick stated. “Shall council wish to discuss the amount and details; I suggest it go into executive session to discuss the matters.”
Sabatino pressed, noting that the salary amount and name of the prospective were already public knowledge.
Glick agreed, but added that if any changes were to be made to compensation amounts, vacation, etc., then those could only be discussed in executive session.
The section of Ohio Revised Code Glick referenced is ORC 122.22(G)(1), which reads:
- To consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual, unless the public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing. Except as otherwise provided by law, no public body shall hold an executive session for the discipline of an elected official for conduct related to the performance of the elected official’s official duties or for the elected official’s removal from office. If a public body holds an executive session pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, the motion, and vote to hold that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved purposes listed in division (G)(1) of this section are the purposes for which the executive session is to be held, but need not include the name of any person to be considered at the meeting.
Sabatino relented and motioned for an executive session. Oprisch seconded and all but Basile voted yes, though the reluctance to vote yes from the councilmembers who originally voted yes last Wednesday was evident.
Resolution 2020-27
Councilwoman Butler, before casting her yes vote for the executive session, asked about the status of the current resolution.
Council President Jim Velas clarified for Butler, noting that “if we got into executive session and if council agrees to any changes, whether that’s benefits, salary, anything, then a new resolution will have to be drawn up to reflect that.
“If it’s not changed, it stays as is and we move forward with the vote.”
After the hour-long discussion, the second reading of 2020-27 was held, signifying no changes were made.
Councilman Basile motioned to waive the three-reading requirement and pass the legislation as an emergency. He, along with Councilmembers Butler, and Smith voted yes.
Councilwoman Oprisch voted absolutely, which was followed by an absolutely not by Councilman Sabatino. Councilmembers Bukmir and Jordan also voted no.
With only 4-3 in favor of waving the three-reading rule, that motion failed and 2020-27 was read, officially, for just the second time.
Councilwoman Oprisch asked about requesting an additional special meeting in order to have the third reading before the August 17 regularly scheduled meeting.
“I would like to request a special meeting for the third and final reading so the votes can be taken for the service director and we can proceed moving forward,” she said.
Velas noted that only the mayor of council president can request such a meeting, and it takes three members of the council to request such a meeting, in writing. Also, a minimum of 48 hours’ notice in order to alert the public and press about said meeting is needed.
