Seriously, President Winch, I have to ask, have you ever read the Charter of the City of Hartford? Do you understand the wide range of power given to the Council under the Charter?
I am somewhat surprised by your constant statements lately that we need to make Department heads live in Hartford.Do you realize you already have the power to make that happen and it is no ones fault but yours when it doesn't? Do you understand that the Mayor can only appoint a Department Head for 90 days as an "acting Department Head". Do you understand that the only way an "acting Department Head" becomes permanent is by your vote, and not by the Mayor.
The comment in the Hartford Courant today about an unnecessary ordinance change "The major change is that it affords the council an opportunity to put in a resolution asking the mayor to terminate some one's employment if they don't comply," Winch said also makes me wonder if you understand the Charter.
You have the power to remove any Department head if you and your colleagues come together and conduct a hearing and put together the 7 votes, whether the Mayor agrees or not. Chapter IV, section 3, subsection "a" will explain this if you need any clarification.
Why don't we just play by the rules we already have rather than deflecting attention or ignoring the obvious?
I have attached the Charter of the City of Hartford for your viewing pleasure.
Hartford City Charter
-
3 comments:
This is exactly why the city is in the condition it's in. You would think they would of done some research before proposing a resolution such as this and if it wasn't clear then ask for a legal opinion. I agree with Kevin's assessment of the council focusing on issues that don't have an immediate impact on the city (i.e. The trans fat ordinance) instead of looking at ways to make attractive for new business or young executives. The store at Hartford 21 was a start but how long can someone buy groceries at those prices and remain in the city. Not many people.
Why are you so hateful and nasty towards people? I feel sorry for you.
Having department heads work in the city makes absolutely no sense and it is inconstantly administered at best. There is no evidence to suggest that being a resident will improve performance or build some kind of loyalty to city residents. In fact, because Hartford is not a booming metropolis there is a strong likelihood that the candidate pool would be stronger if Hartford did not require it.
Let's say for a minute that this was an enforced rule and that it does make sense at some level. Then why not apply it to deputy or assistant department heads, all directors and even all managers? The answer is because it would scare away many excellent candidates who could help turn the city around.
In terms of consistency the rule has never been applied to the board of education, which is the larges city organization. All the assistant superintendent's are department heads, as are the chief financial officer, head of human resources, buildings and grounds and all the other departments that are the equivalent of "City of Hartford" positions.
So there is a rule that makes no sense, hurts Hartford and is not applied uniformly. Maybe this is why the city has so many department head vacancies (MHIS,Development Services, HR). It is time to rethink this bad policy. Upper management jobs already pay significantly less (60-70%) than their private sector counterparts. Why make them try to sell a house and move in the economy. Who benefits?
Post a Comment