CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND
SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002
PRESENT
Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman Council President Lavonzella Siggers
Council Vice President Joseph L. Scott Councilman Michael Day
Councilwoman Rachel Polk Councilman C. T. Webster
IN ATTENDANCE
City Clerk Brenda Colegrove, CMC, Executive Officer John Pick, City Solicitor Paul Wilber and interested Citizens and Members of the Press.
******************************************************************************
The City Council convened in a special meeting at 8:00 a.m. in Room 305 of the City/County Government Building for the second reading of Ordinance No. 1862, enacting supplemental duties of the Chief of Police. Ms. Siggers called the meeting to order.
At the suggestion of Mayor Tilghman, the Council voted 4-1 (Mrs. Polk voted nay) to convene in a closed executive session to discuss a personnel matter upon a motion and a second by Mr. Scott and Mr. Webster, respectively. The closed session adjourned at 8:26 a.m. and Council reconvened in open session.
Mrs. Polk moved and Mr. Webster seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1862 for second reading. For the benefit of the audience, Ms. Siggers read the ordinance as amended on October 18, 2002 (copy attached and made a part of these minutes). Ms. Siggers suggested amending the Now Therefore paragraph by deleting the following:
“the Chief of Police of the City of Salisbury under the added City Code Title 2, Section 2.______, Police Department shall”
and inserting in its place the following:
“Chapter 2.10 Police Department be added to Title 2 Administration and Personnel of the Salisbury Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 2.10
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Section:
2.10.010 Supplemental duties of Chief of Police”
Mrs. Polk moved and Mr. Scott seconded to amend the Now Therefore paragraph in Ordinance No. 1862 for second reading as suggested. All voted in favor of the amendment with the exception of Mr. Day’s abstention.
Ms. Siggers pointed out that the City Charter is subject to the state and/or federal regulations including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) standards.
Highlights of public comments included:
• good example of why FOP is needed to represent the police officers;
• ordinance would set case precedent in Maryland and the nation;
• if passed by Council, the likelihood of being appealed is great - wouldn’t pass muster at the state level and would cost City a lot more money;
• paramount to a Soviet Union style of legislation;
• would detract from hiring quality individuals knowing that personnel files are subject to review;
• violated Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR)
• asked Council to reconsider their position; and
• requested Council members to explain their logic and position on this issue.
In Mr. Day’s opinion, this ordinance violated the spirit of the City Charter and took away from a strong-mayor form of government. He would not vote in favor of Ordinance No. 1862 and believed it should be tabled, postponed or thrown away.
Mr. Webster voiced that this personnel issue should have been resolved months ago, but two things were holding up the investigation. He understood that the LEOBR overrode the City Charter, but he would support the ordinance if it would enable the investigation to be completed, although he disagreed with certain parts of it.
Mr. Scott explained that this issue started with Council members receiving complaints from employees of the Police Department. It was not a witch hunt on his part.
Mrs. Polk related that Council did receive numerous complaints from members of the Police Department, as well as members of the community. Since Mr. Wilber was only able to represent one side of the City of Salisbury, the Council was forced into a position to obtain outside legal counsel to look into the specific complaints brought to the attention of the Council. Mrs. Polk noted that the complaints were not new to Administration since conversations were held with Mayor Tilghman and Chief Webster well over a year ago. When the investigation began, every attempt the Council made to secure information was blocked. There were specific files the attorney needed to review to substantiate information and a few police officers to interview, but this did not occur. Since the Charter gives the Council authority to impose additional functions, Ordinance No. 1862 was an instrument to bring this issue to closure. This would enable Council’s legal counsel to look at the personnel files and speak with less than five officers to bring this matter to a close.
Mayor Tilghman acknowledged that Mr. Wilber’s research was done at her request following the first reading of Ordinance No. 1862. In light of the opinion rendered by Mr. Wilber, Mayor Tilghman opined that there appeared to be a continued reticence by some Council members to take the advice of the City Solicitor. Mr. Wilber’s opinion indicated that the legislation was flawed – in its execution and its intent. The execution of the ordinance conflicted with a number of existing provisions in the City Charter, accepted personnel laws and practices, the LEOBR and executive privilege, nor did it serve the public’s interest. Mayor Tilghman believed the ordinance was another misstep in the effort to terminate the Chief of Police. It was flawed and she could not sign the legislation.
Ms. Siggers supported Ordinance No. 1862 because the Council had made every possible attempt to work with Administration long before they got to this point. A lot of time, resources and money had been spent on an issue which should have been resolved weeks ago. She reiterated that the City’s law is subject to federal and state guidelines, but something was needed to enable the Council to bring this matter to resolution.
After further discussion, Ordinance No. 1862 passed on a 4-1 vote with Mr. Day casting the nay vote.
The special meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
City Clerk
Council President