It’s clear that public interest in what Sweet Home’s City Council is doing has suddenly ratcheted up.
Beyond that, Sweet Home’s population remains largely in the dark as to the whys and wherefores behind the City Council’s dismissal of longtime City Manager Craig Martin last month.
Almost universally, when we discuss on this page issues and events that might be considered negative or divisive, we counsel prudence and patience. Flying off the handle is usually not a good way to address community challenges.
But in this case, it’s hard to know how to respond to an action that, frankly, makes little sense.
The fact is, after last week’s City Council meeting, it’s clear that nobody in the council chambers wants to talk about why we no longer have the city manager who served Sweet Home for 18-plus years.
We are still waiting for clear indications that the council has an established strategy in place for the coming months as the city seeks a city administrator. Shortly after this editorial goes to press, the council will meet and, we’re told, determine who will serve as interim administrator.
As indicated by comments at the council’s recent meetings and by letters to The New Era, it’s pretty clear as well that council members have yet to convince local residents that they know what they’re doing, that there’s a real plan in place here.
The way things have played out hasn’t helped.
At the first meeting following the approval of the contract that paid Martin $126,000 to leave, the council asked staff to come up with a process to secure an interim manager.
While, under normal circumstances, that might be a reasonable and methodical approach, we’re talking here about a situation in which Sweet Home citizens have been blindsided by the council’s action. It would have been wise, to say the least, to have been able to articulate a definitive course of action other than throwing it in the lap of city staff to figure out what to do next.
Then there is the matter of the $25,000 earnest money the council voted on May 2 to put down on the former U.S. Forest Service building at 3225 Main St. in view of turning it into a new City Hall. While it is certainly within the council’s legal rights to discuss property purchases in closed session – real estate negotiations are one of the few exclusions to the state open meetings laws the city must abide by, the timing and abruptness of this decision, like the dismissal of Martin, seem to come out of nowhere.
It’s not good timing, politically.
In our report from the May 10 council meeting, beginning at the top of Page 1, Councilor Jeff Goodwin told the crowd of approximately 50 residents who showed up at the May 10 council meeting that “there reaches a point where you sometimes have to trust the City Council.”
We agree, but we don’t think the community is at that point.
The entire process that led to the city manager’s departure was cloaked with secrecy. We’re still wiating for answers to the looming question: “Why?”
The city attorney and council members repeatedly resorted to the legal restraints contained in the contract signed by the council and Martin in declining to explain what led them to cut the city manager loose.
We understand that, but in this scenario that doesn’t cut it. The council members represent citizens who voted for them to lead the city. Certainly, management of the city manager is part of the council’s job. But when a manager has been in place for nearly 20 years and suddenly gets cut loose, without a public evaluation for the past three years and with no explanation other than a few platitudes, the council cannot expect blind trust.
That seemingly unprepared handling of finding an interim manager hasn’t helped.
Trust is an issue here and that is what council members need to address. They’ve apparently dug themselves into a hole with the language of the contract dismissing Martin and now they can’t defend themselves. But they need to.
Leadership requires trust, as Goodwin has pointed out.
The council needs to conduct business in the open and it needs to demonstrate to Sweet Home residents that it has a unified, well-conceived plan of action.
Goodwin made another comment in last week’s meeting that bears repeating here: “I’ve got to tell you, sitting on the other side of this table, it can be frustrating at times because it feels like people aren’t interested or aren’t involved unless something sparks their attention. Believe me, everybody here at this table wants the (community) to be involved.”
We agree, at least to the extent that citizens need to pay attention.
Following what the local government is doing isn’t always too exciting. The majority of the population is busy with jobs, family, recreation, entertainment, hobbies, volunteering – you name it.
But it’s those citizens who will ultimately be impacted, one way or another, by every decision the City Council, the Planning Commission, the School Board, the Sweet Home Fire and Ambulance District Board of Directors, etc. make. That’s why we the newspaper is here – to keep folks aware of what’s going on.
The council’s actions appear to have awakened the attention of many residents. That’s good and we encourage them to stay informed.
That’s healthy government.