The gist of last week’s lead news story was straight forward enough: assembly fires manager. Yes, several assembly members are on record for creating and supporting this premature and divisive personnel crisis. And that record sadly also includes assembly member Paul Rogers’ particularly mean-spirited words (which were so unbecoming to his office that he should probably resign from his assembly seat for ethical reasons).
Yes, those assembly members who orchestrated the palace coup should be held accountable. But the reality is that the assembly did not have enough votes to fire the manager. It was the Mayor who actually stepped in and personally inserted the dagger (with her tie-breaking vote).
This is especially disturbing given that that Mayor is the symbolic head of our community and, in this role, needs to navigate the fray and work to improve harmony within the assembly and minimize conflict in the community. Additionally, it’s the mayor’s responsibility to ensure that established borough procedures are followed—including the fair and proper evaluation of the manager. The Mayor had, over the span of two meetings, heard from a long list of community members speaking publicly in favor of retaining the manager and undertaking a thorough evaluation rather than simply acting impulsively. In the end, the choice was given to the Mayor. And, unfortunately, she chose to act impulsively, rather than as a responsible leader—creating additional and unnecessary instability in these already unstable times.
George Figdor