Lincoln City Council
Aldermen reaffirm department heads, conflicted over choice of mayor pro tem


 

[May 19, 2021] 

In the city of Lincoln, mayoral appoints to department head positions were approved by unanimous vote of the city council on Monday evening. Serving as department heads for the next 12 months will be Paul Adams as the Chief of Police, Bob Dunovsky as Fire Chief, Wes Woodhall as Building and Zoning Officer, and Walt Landers as Street Superintendent.

Following the council vote, Dunovsky was sworn into his position by city attorney John Hoblit. The remaining three department heads were not in attendance and will be sworn in at a later date.

The position of head of the Sewerage Department is not an appointed position, therefore there was no vote taken to retain Andrew Bowns as the head of that department. The city contracts sewer and waste treatment plant management to a third party and Bowns works for that company.

Mayor Pro Tem

Aldermen also approved the appointment of Kevin Bateman as Mayor Pro Tem by a vote of 5-1-1, adding a term limit of one year to the motion. Voting yes were Sam Downs, Ron Fleshman, Rick Hoefle, Kathy Horn, and Steve Parrott. Bateman abstained from the vote and Wanda Lee Rohlfs voted no.

The decision to accept the recommendation from Mayor Tracy Welch to have Bateman as Mayor Pro Tem followed much discussion and some controversy starting when Welch announced his choice at the Tuesday, May 11th Committee of the Whole meeting.

May 11th discussion

When Welch made that announcement on the 11th, Wanda Lee Rohlfs asked first what had been Welch’s criteria for selection of a Mayor Pro Tem. Welch said that there was no specific criteria outlined that should be followed in making the selection. He had however considered several things when making his choice. He said that in his time as Acting Mayor he had found Bateman to be very helpful and very invested. Bateman, Welch said, has always been one he could rely on when seeking assistance in a matter, Bateman is reliable, shows good judgement, and is one whom Welch believes would take care of city in his absence.

Rohlfs said that she had reservations. For her a Mayor Pro Tem needs to be one with good leadership skills and one who has the confidence of the council. She said that she wasn’t convinced that Bateman had those qualities.

Rohlfs had been sworn into office as Ward 3 Alderwoman on May 3rd. Soon after, she said that she received a call from Bateman inviting her to take on a project that he had discussed with Welch. Rohlfs said in that conversation, Bateman gave her misleading information about the condition of the county owned Scully and Latham parks located near the downtown portion of the city.

Rohlfs had reached out to County Board Chairman Emily Davenport about the parks and the possibility that the city could take over those parks because the city was financially more able to care for and improve the parks than the county.

Rohlfs said that she had felt misinformed by Bateman when she learned from Davenport that the parks are being cared for and that there are improvement projects underway and projects that have also been completed such as the new playgrounds in Latham Park. She said that Davenport had briefly outlined work that is ongoing in Scully Park, including a large investment to upgrade the fountain in the center of the park.

The conversation veered away from the parks as Kathy Horn asked if having Bateman as Mayor Pro Tem with his wife being the city clerk would be a conflict of interest.

City Attorney John Hoblit was called on to answer that question, who said that on the face of it he saw no conflict of interest. He said he could research it further.

Rick Hoefle said that he had heard from a number of his Ward 4 constituents who disagreed. He said his people in his ward feel this is “nepotism at its highest level.”

City Treasurer Chuck Conzo weighed in saying that in smaller communities there are several times when there will be members of the same family holding offices in city government, and it causes no issues.

He added that it is important to note that the mayor does not have a supervisory position over the clerk. The clerk does not take orders from the mayor.

Welch spoke up saying that was true and that in his time as acting mayor he has never attempted to give Clerk Bateman a directive and Mayor Pro Tem Bateman would not be able to do so either.

In regard to the parks, Welch said that the intention of the request was “genuine in nature.” He added that the original question though had been in response to the public perception that the parks do belong to the city. He said that the city is constantly receiving requests for use of the park and other calls pertaining to the parks. Those callers have to be told that they should contact the county.

Welch said that, yes, the discussion had been about working with the county to perhaps take over the parks, but not necessarily because they were not being taken care of, but rather because the city does have money available to care for the parks, and it would eliminate the confusion of who to call when constituents want to discuss the parks.

Rick Hoefle asked how it was that the city had money to care for the parks. Bateman said that the money would come from the left over hotel/motel tax revenues that the city has.

Discussion continued with the money issues and the parks. Hoefle noted that the parks would not create ‘heads in beds” which is part of the tourism criteria, so he wasn’t sure that money could be used.

Welch told Rohlfs that there was no intentional move to put her in a bad position with the county board.

Rohlfs asked how aldermen should respond to the topic of conflict of interest with constituents. Hoblit said that perception of conflict doesn’t necessary make it a legal conflict. Legally there is no conflict of interest, regardless of how people may see it.

The position of Mayor Pro Tem is supposed to be a temporary seat to be utilized only when the mayor is absent for short periods of time, such as on vacation.

Steve Parrott asked what would be the process if something were to happen to Welch and the seat of mayor became vacant. He asked if the current Mayor Pro Tem could be removed by the council and a new one appointed in that case?

It was explained that the Mayor Pro Tem is not the same as an Acting Mayor. Should Welch be unable to fulfill his duties, the Mayor Pro Tem would be expected to assist the council is nominating and approving within its ranks an Acting Mayor.

May 17th discussion

On May 17th when the item came up on the agenda Parrott made the motion to approve Bateman as Mayor Pro Tem with Sam Downs offering the second.

Parrott immediately said then that he wanted to amend the motion to include a one-year term limit for the position. He noted that it would be good for the position to be passed around to other aldermen who might want the opportunity to lead meetings in the mayor’s absence.

Hoefle spoke next saying he would like to make two points or suggestions. First, he wanted to suggest that the council hold off on taking this vote because it does not have eight members. With Welch being elected Mayor, the Ward 1 seat is now empty. Hoefle thought there should be eight members present for the vote.

Next Hoefle said that under current city code, the Mayor does not have to appoint a Mayor Pro Tem at all. He said that according to the code, the city council can appoint a pro tem at any time in the absence of the mayor.

He referred to code Chapter 1-5-3

If a majority of the City Council members present at a regular meeting, or at a meeting specially called by any member of the City Council pursuant to this section, agree at such meeting that an emergency exists within the City during: a) a vacancy in the office of Mayor, or b) the temporary absence of the Mayor from the City, then the City Council may appoint one of its members to exercise the duties of the Mayor until: a) a vacancy in the office of Mayor ceases to exist, b) the return of the Mayor, or c) until such time as the City Council revokes the appointment of the member of the City Council to exercise the duties of the Mayor. During such temporary appointment, the appointed member of the City Council shall be designated Mayor pro tem, and shall receive no additional compensation because of such appointment.

Hoefle said that according to that code, the city was “putting the cart before the horse” in selecting a pro tem at all.

Welch said that he had to ask the question, “Are we going to these modified approaches because of who I chose.”

It was noted that appointing a pro tem on the spot could only be done at a regular voting meeting, so if the mayor were absent for a committee of the whole meeting there could be no vote taken to appoint a pro tem. Also no special voting meeting or emergency meetings could be called on the fly for the same reason; it must be called by the mayor or a mayor pro tem.

Welch concluded that appointment of a mayor pro tem has been done by the mayor for many years, and that what the city is following is past precedent. Hoefle concluded then that because everyone else has done it wrong, it is okay for this council to do it wrong as well.

Conzo said that he seemed to recall that when Mayor (Scott) Cooper passed away suddenly there was some examination by then city attorney Bates of state statues concerning mayor pro tem and acting mayor and he had found that the city code did not agree with state code. Therefore, the city had been advised to follow state code.

Welch rephrased his earlier question to the council asking if the issue at hand concerning Bateman as mayor pro tem was more of a personal issue.

Rohlfs said that it was certainly not personal. She said that since last week she had received many calls from people urging her to continue with her objection saying it was valid.

Welch then asked if the term limits were adopted would Bateman be excluded from the choices. Parrott said no. His proposal is to elect Bateman for this first year, then next year the mayor would nominate and the council would elect someone new.

Hoefle re-stated his first concern and again asked that there be no vote taken until there were eight aldermen on the council.

Downs said, no, there should be no further postponement. He noted that prior to this discussion, seven aldermen had voted on spending huge amounts of money on the Waste Treatment upgrades without hesitation. He said, “Mayor pro tem is not a huge concern compared to other things we’ve voted on as a partial council.”

Earlier in the evening the council had approved motions totaling $1,663,934.96 for the mandated sewer upgrades.

Discussion began to wind down but continued on for a few minutes before Parrott made the official motion to amend the position of Mayor Pro Tem to a one-year term, with Downs calling the second. The vote was taken and approved on the amendment then the vote was taken to name Kevin Bateman as Mayor Pro-Tem. The first motion passed 6-0-1 with Bateman abstaining and all others voting yes. The second vote was taken and passed with 5-1-1 with Bateman abstaining, Rohlfs voting no, and all others voting yes.

During the course of the evening, Welch noted that he will be absent for a meeting in June while on vacation. He was also asked how many vacations he anticipated taking in the next year. He responded that he has two vacations planned.

[Nila Smith]