Matter Not Closed
It occurs to me that in the case of Parkville’s city governance, the city is still in that awkward growth period.
Surely more than a few of us remember going through that stage right after our pituitary glands started kicking in. Some of us had acne, some of us started maturing and growing in places we hadn’t expected to and some of us handled it a whole lot better than the other kids.
Well, even though Parkville’s been incorporated for quite a while now, in terms of growth, we’re still in puberty and nothing makes the case for that argument better than the city’s recent handling of the Hammond matter. Sooner or later, the city will have to decide if we’re going to govern like a first class city (and when we reach 10,000, we’re officially a first class city) or like Petticoat Junction.
Readers who have been following the story since we broke it four weeks ago know that the city hired an outside firm to look into what some alleged to be a problem at City Hall – in this case, the proper keeping of time sheets and the employment of one Miss Hammond. In my opinion, this became a big story for our readers because a.) it appeared to be a case of overkill, hiring an outside firm to investigate the allegations; b.) Miss Hammond has been known to be a vociferous political activist of late and has stepped on some toes, and c.) man, just what is our city government doing up there, anyway?
In the city’s press release – which should contain copies of The Luminary in an appendix due to its vague references to the story – the powers that be decreed that Miss Hammond did a good job, we no longer need that job, and that “the matter is closed.”
Yeah, well, actually the matter isn’t closed, Parkville city government press release person(s). It may be closed between you and Miss Hammond, but it’s not over until a few more questions have been answered. Besides, we have all this ink by the barrel to use.
So, why did the city decide to hire an outside firm to look into personnel issues when we’re currently paying a professional city manager? Did the aldermen foolishly overstep their bounds and waste taxpayer money (I’ve heard in the neighborhood of $10,000) on this legal matter? According to their statement, Miss Hammond’s job was eliminated and it had nothing to do with time sheets. Then what was the outside firm hired to do, exactly, in the first place? Maybe the city started a legal fight they weren’t prepared to finish? If not, perhaps the consultant just made recommendations about the way the city is being run? Prove that it wasn’t about time sheets or employee wrongdoing or share the “consultant’s advice.” Seems fair, since the taxpayers paid for that juris doctorate.
Oh yeah, and how much was that payment?
Explain why this wasn’t a situation the City Manager Joe Turner, in a fire-at-will state, couldn’t solve? Is there a problem we don’t know about? Is it time for a public vote of confidence for Mr. Turner?
Explain all the secrecy and the use of spy-terms like “red herring” as this story played out. I know at least one alderman who likes to send out e-mails referencing “behind the scenes meetings” as if they’re carving up Berlin for the allies.
Those sort of things seem more Mayberry than Yalta and the matter is decidedly not closed.