Loading...
03-03-76SpMtg (2) MARCH 3, 1976 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, March 3, 1976, with Mayor James H. Scheifley presiding, City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, Assistant City Attorney Clifford O. Shandy, and Council members Andrew M. Gent, Grace S. Krivos, David E. Randolph and Aaron I. Sanson, IV, present. The Lord's Prayer was repeated in unison. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of ~nerica was given. Mayor Scheifley called the meeting to order and announced that same had been called for the purpose of considering the dismissal of the Acting City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Mr. J. Eldon Mariott, and for the appointment of a new Acting City Manager. The notice calling for the meeting was signed by David E. Randolph, Andrew M. Gent and Grace S. Krivos. Mr. Randolph moved for the immediate dismissal of the Acting City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Mr. J. Eldon Mariott, seconded by Mr. Gent. Mayor Scheifley asked for the Opinion of the Assistant City Attorney, in the absence of the City Attorney, concerning the procedure of the meeting. The Assistant City Attorney stated the question involved is the interpretation of Section 44 of the City's present Charter. He quoted Section 44 of the Charter as follows: "The City Manager ~hall hold office at the pleasure of a majority of the City Council, provided that he shall not be removed from office during the period of forty-five days following any regular City election except by the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council". The Assistant City Attorney stated the question is whether or not an Acting City Manager would be construed in the same way as the word City Manager would. He said his opinion is that the word City Manager would include Acting City Manager. He said he f~lt such interpretation is compelled in order to implement the pur- pose of the 45 day cooling period. WithOut such an interpretation, the purpose of the section would be defeated. He said further that he.had discussed this matter with the City Attorney who agreed with the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney. Mayor Scheifley asked if there were any attorneys present who could give an opinion on this matter. Mr. Robert D. Chapin, 1045 E. Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach; Mr. William H. Matthews, 1024 White Drive, Delray Beach; Mr. John H. Adams, 50 S.E. 4th Avenue, Delray Beach; Mr. Robert G. Fellows, 610 E. Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach; and Mrs. Ann Deacon (Fenyvessy), 954 Bollender Drive, Delray Beach, attorneys in the City of Delray Beach, all stated they agreed with the opinions rendered by the Assistant City Attorney and the City Attorney. Council members agreed to listen to'members of the audience if they had anything to add to the discussion. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of retaining the City Manager: Mr. John Pitts, 237 Seacrest Lane, Delray Beach; Mr. Jeff Hill, 101 N.W. llth Street, Delray Beach; Mr. Harvey Brown, 1209 E. Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach; Mr. Mike Considine, 917 South Drive Terrace, Delray Beach; Mr. Dayo Clelland, 50 N.E. 3rd Street, Delray Beach; Mr. Mike Brody, 780 High Point Drive East, Delray Beach; Mr. Art SproUt, 2003 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach; Col..Theodore Poole, 1011 Brooks Lane, Delray iBeach. Dr. Carl Carter, 1421 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, asked what the formal charges were against the City Manager. Mrs. Charles Crane, 107 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, spoke in favor of Mrs. Krivos. Mr. David Ogden, Delray Beach Police Department, spoke against retaining the City Manager. Mrs. Frederick Forbell, 433 Aylesbury Road, Delra~ Beach, stated she felt the name-calling was unnecessary, and said she ~9~. th~ problems~.may,b~.!n..the rules and regUia~i~ns; ~h~ ~ fi'~ %h.9.~e need ~o~.be c~ange~ but_ihdiv'idu~!'S need not be &ccused. The~e being no further discussion from the audience, Mayor Scheifley turned the disCussion over to Council members. Mrs. Krivos asked the Assistant City Attorney if there is anything in the present City Charter and the new City Charter that deals with an Acting City Manager. She said she disagreed with his opinion that an Acting or Interim City Manager is the same as the City Manager. She said he was hired back to act as an Acting or Interim City Manager on a temporary basis. The Assistant City Attorney replied it is true that this is a matter of construction'and interpretation. He said two motions must be taken into consideration that were made at the meeting held on February 9th. One concerned the motion to dismiss the City Manager; the other made by Mr. Sanson stated that the City Manager should remain in his position until such time as an Interim City Manager is found, and that Council discuss at a future point the terms under which Mr. Mariott will leave the employ of the City. He stated the most important point is that the purpose of this provision of the Charter is to enable the Council to have a quiet, calm period. He stated to give this the import that it requires, it seemed Council is compelled to interpret "City Manager" to include the Acting City Manager. Mrs. Krivos stated she agreed with the Assistant City Attorney on harmonious relations; however, she said it is very, very rare when an election is held with an Acting City Manager in ~charge who is a hold-over from a dismissed City Manager. She said the situation would require an in-depth study of the section of the Charter to properly interpret it. The Acting City Attorney sta~ed the interpre- t.ration was definitely a matter of opinion. Mayor Scheifley asked to hear from Councilman-elect Leon'M. Weekes. Mr. Weekes stated the campaign results revealed his feelings on the subject eloquently. He said there is a proper time to co~sider such action as is being considered today, but this is not the time or place. Mr. Weekes said if the results of the investigation reveal any malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or other illegal act,. he would Support the firing of the City Manager. He said he would not support ~it until that time. -~ Mr. Randolph stated he was the Council member who initiated the petition to have the special meeting called today. He said~he did so for the following reasons. 1 - He refused to become involved with any requests for special meetings since he did not wish to damage the running ability of either candidate for the office of Mayor. 2 - Mr. Randolph said he thought the administrative and.management ability of the City Manager were top-notch, but he felt his handling of personnel has been far less than what is to be desired. He stated recently, after the vote was taken to discharge Mr. Mariott from the City's employ, numerous things have happened. But he said the-most appalling to him was the offer of a job with the Sheriff's Department for Patrolman Richard Zolnay. He said the offer was brought to him by Mr. Mariott at his place of business; he said he told Mr. Mariott that what Mr. Zolnay did was his business. The City Manager asked Mr. Randolph what h~ thought of the situation; Mr. Randolph said he thought if the man was agreeable, it did not matter to him. Mr. Randolph said he told Mr. Mariott he would not carry the word to the man. He said his campaign manager did carry the word to Mr. Zolnay. Apparently he rejected this offer. Mr. Zolnay asked Mr. Randolph if he knew Mr. Durden; Mr. Randolph said Mr. Durden was his campaign manager when he first ran for office. Mr. Zolnay told Mr. Randolph that the offer sounded all right, but he knew that if he went to the Sheriff's Department, something might have been wrong. He said over the past several years, he had supported the admin- istration as well as any Council member. Since the vote to oust the City Manager, he said he has been called a numbe~ of things, both in person and on the telephone. He said everyone is entitled to their opinion. He said in the past t,eo years, there have been many ills in the City of Delray Beach. He said he was concerned with Mr. Zolnay's case because of the principle involved. He said the City had virtually no case against the man. He was fired on three trumped-up charges: 1 - he was fired because of an incident involving his wife at the recreational -2- 3-3-76.~ complex on S.W. 4th Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue. He said the people involved were known troublemakers and he said if his wife had been in- volved, he would have been far more aggressive than Mr. Zolnay at that time. 2 - He was fired for a shoe incident. Lt. Brooks stated he did not order Mr. Zolnay to buy a new pair of shoes; he only told him to clean them up which Mr. Zolnay did and reported back to duty. The Chief of the Patrol Division subsequently ordered the man to buy a new pair of shoes. 3 - He was accused of bad-mouthing; Mr. Randolph said Mrs. Krivos cleared that matter up at the workshop. Mr. Randolph said the public could badger him all they wished, but none of these actions would correct the ills of the City until someone does something about it. Mr. Sanson said after fifteen months-of public office where he has met hundreds of officials, that he has never been prouder than what he has seen of elected officials. He said although the public seems to believe every politician is corrupt, he could not say he has come across even one percent ot officials who fall into this category. Six months ago, Mr. Randolph was being spoken of because he failed to vote to fire the City Manager. Today, these same individuals are coming up saying how corrupt Mr. Randolph.must be and that he has sold himself out. Mr. Sanson said no. one controls him or anyone else, he feels, on the Council. He said he resented the innuendos and accusations and said he wished the people who speak behind backs had the guts to speak to your face. He said Council and the administration are doing the best they can. He said he regretted this issue has left the point where people can disagree without being disagreeable. He said he would respect the opposing views and asked each citizen to be more considerate to the elected officials. Mr. Sanson said he knew of the situation that has existed in the Police Department and that he has done everything he is legally entitled to do as a Council member to get to the bottom of~the problem. He said he has received a great deal of criticism for being the swing vote to allow Mr. Zolnay to come before the Council. He said the reason he vo~ed to allow this action was because he felt something was needed in this town to bring the matter before Council. He said he knew the charges that would be discussed would result in proving the charges could be easily refuted. He said he felt this was needed to guarantee a majority of the Council would vote for the investigation and evaluation. Mr. Sanson said he realized a lot of people felt the investigation would be nothing but a whitewash; he said it would not be as long as he sat on Council and he doubted it would be as long as any Council member presen~ sat on Council. He said he was criticized for his vote six months ago when he voted for an evaluation. He feels the principles upon which this country .is founded should be allowed to function. He said he believed people were wronged, but he felt the investigation would show it. However, he said it was not for him or anyone on the Council to be a judge and jury. The investigation will prove to the citizens of Delray Beach that some- thing was wrong and then corrections can be made. He promised the citizens that if the investigation does not give a fair rendering of opinion, he would take some other action. He said the City Attorney has stated the powers of subpoena and the powers of perjury can be given to the investi- gating team. He again stated the i~vestigation would be fair. Mayor Scheifley stated he could not add anything that would be anything except repetition. He said he concurred with Mr. Sanson and Mr. Weekes. He stated Council should make a decision based on facts, not hearsay, allegations or rumors. Mayor Scheifley called for the question. Upon roll call, Council voted as follows: Mr. Gent - Yes; Mrs. Krivos - Yes; Mr. Randolph- Yes; Mr. Sanson - No; Mayor Scheifley - No. 0. The.Chair ruled the'motion has been defeated on the advice of the Attorney that it requires a 4 to 1 vote. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 P.M. /MAYOR ' -3-