Home

The City Council's abrupt firing of Paul Hughes was crass, unnecessary, ill advised and only marginally legal.

It raises concerns about some members' dedication to open government and about the kind of city manager they'll seek as Hughes' replacement.

At issue is a 5-2 vote taken Tuesday to fire Hughes, city manager for seven years, effective -- oddly -- at the end of the month. The five -- Towny Anderson, Ken Brenner, Susan Dellinger, Kevin Kaminski and Steve Ivancie -- seem to have arrived at the meeting with an agreement and a plan. How they reached consensus and formed a plan without violating at least the spirit of the state's open meetings law is anybody's guess.

There's no doubt the new council, and, practically speaking, the new majority bloc, has the right to hire a new city manager. Hughes himself acknowledged that right when, before the sun rose Nov. 4, he announced plans to retire. Like responsible chief executives often do, however, he agreed to stay until his employers found a replacement.

There's no question the council had the right to end that arrangement at its pleasure. The blunt, insensitive way the majority did so was uncalled for, however. The move seemed calculated to cause Hughes as much public humiliation as possible. At the very least it was a brute display of political power for no reason beyond the display itself.

What the majority might have done, once it formed its off-the-books consensus, was call Hughes and tell him the gig was up. Members of that bloc might also have followed the spirit and obvious intent of the open meetings law by announcing their intentions on a City Council agenda; instead, they managed to be surreptitious and embarrass Hughes, too.

Open meetings laws exist to mark the boundaries between proper and improper conduct of public business. There always are murky areas around the edges, but it's not unreasonable to expect elected officers to avoid those, even when it's politically expedient to do otherwise. It's troubling that these five council members trespassed so far into the murk so soon into some of their tenures.

The move will cost taxpayers $60,000 in severance pay and leaves the city without an experienced manager at the beginning of peak tourist season. So far, none of the explanations offered by those who ousted Hughes makes that look anything but ill advised.

What's done is done. What's worrisome now is this: Will the council seek a strong, professional manager who'll tell them frankly what he thinks is best for the city, or someone who'll just rubber-stamp the majority's agenda?