On 5 November, Georgetown Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames vetoed the City Council passed “Just Cause” ordinance that would have required the mayor to provide justification for the firing of city employees. Mayor Tingle-Sames has developed something of a reputation in Georgetown for autocratic firing within the city government, frequently citing “loyalty” issues as her rationale. Karen Tingle-Sames, voiced her objections to the ordinance in a letter provided to the City Clerk and City Council. In this letter, she stated that just cause is the start of acknowledging union employment and that the taxpayers of Georgetown do not want city government recognizing union employment. Karen Tingle-Sames claimed that she stood with the majority of the community in her decision.
Stephen Glass and Mark Singer both voted against just cause in the City Council resolution for the ordinance that passed 6-2. Stephen Glass noted that he would have to review the mayor’s reasoning before he could declare for or against the ordinance should another vote on it come up. Councilman Glass also stated correctly that the mayor is part of the problem. Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames has shown a penchant for unnecessary and demoralizing patronage-based personnel decisions in which she punishes those who disagree with her and rewards her supporters. Most famous of these decisions was the firing of the long-time fire chief for “loyalty” issues and his replacement with a supporter of the Mayor- the “loyalty issue was the now-former chief’s support of Ms. Tingle-Sames’ opponent in the previous election. This, along with other personnel decisions, has left a city government unable to posit contrary viewpoints, stalling the free exchange of ideas necessary in an economically challenging environment.
Mayor Tingle-Sames’ rationale posted in the News-Graphic rely on two logically fallacious arguments. The first is her “slippery slope” argument that just cause will lead to unionization; this slippery slope leads to her “straw man” argument against fears of unionization. Requiring rational basis for employment decisions does not, in any way, lead necessarily to unionization, and it improves city government accountability. Unions are not a major issue for the City of Georgetown, and the organization required to get one started will tip off those in charge long before the matter could come to a vote. A feeling of greater job security among city employees that would be fostered by the just cause ordinance would actually help the city stave off any future efforts at union organizing and would also improve the content of city governance discussions, leading to better decisions. The union threat is not real. I do not know what Karen Tingle-Sames considers to be the taxpayers of the community or the majority. As for her “majority of the community”, I don’t seem to recall any referendum measure or poll, by which the community consensus might be gauged, to have happened. As for taxpayers, everyone in the community is a taxpayer, so perhaps the Mayor is referring to those paying property taxes, which would specialize her pool of opinion somewhat. Still, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the legitimacy of the Mayor’s comments and veto.
Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames’ veto of the just cause ordinance strikes this member of the community as an attempt to maintain absolute autocracy over city employees in order to build a city government responsive only to her needs and those of her supporters. There are many good reasons why patronage employment has been rejected by communities across the country. Her rationale for the veto is deceptive and misrepresentative, I believe, of the wishes of the City of Georgetown as a whole. While the only information I currently have on this issue at the moment is that from the News-Graphic article on her veto, I am reasonably confident that the analysis will withstand scrutiny, while the Mayor’s motives will not.
No comments:
Post a Comment