Last night's City Council meeting in Burleson was one for the record books. Nearly four hours on one agenda item made for an interesting evening. On a side note I love that the City of Burleson makes there council meetings available live online. Being able to watch from home with my usual evening snack sure made it easy to attend.
The big deal last night was a debate on the City Manager's performance and his possible termination. The charges against Curtis Hawk were brought by Councilman Aiken who requested the item be placed on last night's agenda. Mr. Aiken illustrated some serious charges against the City Manager. Mainly, he accused him of withholding information or pushing a bias among staff when presenting items to the council for deliberation. Mr. Aiken felt the council did not receive all the information necessary to make informed decisions for the citizens.
The night went on with numerous citizens addressing the council and but for a few most all spoke glowingly of Mr. Hawk and his performance as City Manager. In the end a motion was made to remove the item from the agenda and won in a 4-3 vote. Mr. Hawk, who is scheduled to retire in March 2012, will most likely work though that date now I would guess.
I know Mayor Shetter as an acquaintance from several local and regional meetings. I know Councilman Pool as a business client since he's called on my company (standby for shameless plug), AcceliNet Computer Services, for support of his office systems. Other than that I'm not familiar with the Burleson Council or most goings on in the city. Except for a few that spoke last night most also do not have an intimate knowledge of the internal workings between the City Manager and the City Council. Judgement, I feel, is a dish best served with a side of information so I won't come to any conclusions here today. What did stand out to me though was that Mr. Aiken had very specific allegations and all the public defense was related to the growth and success of the city under Mr. Hawk's watch. That growth and success is indisputable, but that wasn't the point. I find it interesting that nobody said "Mr. Hawk has done well for the city, but this should be looked at closer." Everyone pretty much ignored the actual charge against him and just stood as character witnesses. There is value there don't get me wrong, but it doesn't get into the merits of the allegations. Why was it that nobody was alarmed at what might be going on at city hall? I believe it's because things are rolling along well in Burleson. When people are pretty happy I think they don't care too much about how it's being accomplished. Right or wrong that's my observation. This may just come down down to a severe personality conflict and communication problems. I hope so. I too like how things are going in Burleson from an outside stand point and I hate to see such conflict with my neighbors.
A.J.
The issue that brought people out wasn't that no one wanted to say anything aboutCurtis' performance as a city manager, but no one knew what the allegations were, except for apparently those that voted against him. Aiken hasn't brought any of this to the attention of the other coouncil members before. It was only when he thought he had the votes did he bring it up as a action item. This denied anyone an opportunity to get facts and make a determined conclusion during a properly called meeting. Instead, this information was brought with only a few people being privy to the "facts". Some of these facts may be know due to the spouse of one candidate working for the city and using their "insider" knowledge to accuse the city manager of wrong doing. If that is true, then the spouse who has the info and is now a council member again, should have brought that info to the attention of the full board. If Mr. Aiken knew about it from other sources, he should have asked for discussion long ago and not only when he had poiitcal support from the newly elected member. Again, the way it worked out, there was an effort, intentional ornot, to9 currcumvent opne meeting rules. You can't make a decision outside a legally called meeting and among only a few council meetings.
ReplyDelete