SC APPOINTMENT DRAWS CRITICISM; COUNCILMAN CONSIDERS CITY JOB

SCOTT CITY -- A controversy surrounding the appointment of City Councilman John Rogers to head the city public works division after its director Harold Uelsmann leaves prompted debate at Monday night's Scott City Council meeting.

Most questions posed by residents will have to wait to be answered.

Rogers was appointed to the position over two other candidates, and could be in violation of at least one city ordinance if he accepts the position.

City attorney Francis Siebert said no ordinances were fractured by Rogers' appointment, and no ordinances will be broken if Rogers accepts the position.

One ordinance in question states no person occupying the position of mayor, councilman or any other elective city office shall hold any other elective or appointive office, or be an employee of the city. Another section states two members of an immediate family shall not be employed under the same supervisor; neither shall two members of an immediate family be employed at the same time regardless of the administrative department, if such employment will result in an employee supervising a member of his/her immediate family.

Immediate family is defined as wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, etc.

Siebert said that Rogers has not accepted the position. His acceptance will be considered an immediate resignation from the council.

City council member Brenda Moyers specifically asked Siebert if Rogers' neither accepting nor rejecting the appointment could be considered an acceptance. "If he didn't turn it down, does that mean he accepted it?" Moyers asked.

Siebert replied that the city code requires an affirmative action from Rogers, either a verbal or written commitment, to be considered an acceptance of the position.

Lloyd Young, who was in the audience, said if Rogers applied for the position, then was offered it and didn't turn it down, it should be considered an acceptance.

"Every job that I've ever seen happen is when someone applies for a job and they're selected and they're appointed; then they've got the job," Young said. "Have you been appointed or not? I see a man sitting in the council that is a city employee. He's been hired. You all have selected him. You've approved him. And he's still sitting on the city council. I don't think that's quite right."

Young said salary should not be in question and should not be holding up the process, because an advertisement for the job was clear in specifying a salary range of $22,000 to $28,000, dependent on experience.

Rogers said he is awaiting a meeting with the council before he gives his answer, but if the conditions were right he would accept the job.

"Once the council gets together and tells me what the salary is going to be, then, yes, probably," he said.

The second ordinance, Siebert said, doesn't necessarily apply because Rogers and his sister, Carolyn Tinsley, who works for the city administrator, would not be working under the same supervisor.

Council member Marsha Zimmerman explained that Rogers would be a department head and would answer directly to the mayor and the city council. Zimmerman said the city administrator "loosely" supervises all city employees and would not have the power to fire the public works director. Only the mayor and council can do that, she said.

"We have to first determine who is the public works director's supervisor," Zimmerman said. "The public works director is an appointed officer. The only people who have the power to remove an appointed officer is the mayor, with the council's approval, or, without the mayor's consent, a two-thirds vote from the council."

At the last city council meeting two weeks ago, Rogers was approved for the position by a 4-3 vote over applicants Jack Resnick and Warren Masterson, even though Siebert said he expressed a concern to the council over the legality of the appointment.

"I questioned it," Siebert said. "There is an ordinance that addresses relatives in the city. However, it is their (the council members') position, and it is my position, that whether something violates the ordinance or not will not become an issue until he (Rogers) accepts his position."

Resnick has been a Scott City employee for the past 10 years. Masterson, who holds a degree in drafting from Southeast Missouri State University, is a local business owner and is within a year of obtaining a state water license, he said.

Council member Norman Brant was one of the members voting against Rogers' appointment.

"I voted against it for the simple reason that we have a city ordinance that says no two immediate family members can work together under the same supervisor," Brant said. "Appointing John Rogers would mean that he and his sister, Carolyn Tinsley, would have the same immediate supervisor."

Brant said he favored Masterson for the job.

"I really can't say (why Rogers was appointed). I voiced my concerns about the legality of it," he said. "I have nothing against John Rogers. I like John, but I don't feel like it was legal to appoint him to this position.

"I think the person that was brought up first, which was Warren Masterson, was the person we should have appointed."

Council member Gary Miller supported Rogers' nomination.

"At the time, I thought he was the only man who met the qualifications we were looking for," Miller said. "He is a resident of the city. He has some background in city works. As far as degrees, he does not have any that I know of."

Zimmerman stated that according to the city code the public works director must be a city resident. Masterson said he and Resnick both live outside the city limits.

Even that detail in this issue is under debate, because there is a provision in the city code that says residency requirements can be waived under certain conditions.

Glendella May, who was in the audience, asked, "Is it accepted practice or ethical for a council member to be appointed to a city job? To someone like me, from the outside looking in, it does appear that, if I could get on the city council, then I could get a good city job."