Florence mayor, city council need to fix rift
Published: August 23, 2009
Major differences between Florence Mayor Stephen J. Wukela and city council members have created an open rift that needs resolution.
Wukela’s critics sought an opinion from Attorney General Henry McMaster about the legality of replacing the first-term mayor as council chairman. State law does not require the mayor to serve as chairman in a city manager-council form of government.
“As such, we do not find any provision of state law discussing who should preside over city council meetings under a council-manager form of municipal government,” McMaster wrote. “Therefore, finding no conflict with state law, we believe the city may amend its code of ordinances to allow a city council member other than the mayor to preside over its meetings.”
After McMaster’s ruling, an ordinance was introduced at last week’s council meeting to allow council members to pick their own chairman, not necessarily the mayor.
The disagreements between Wukela, a liberal, and conservative-leaning council members Buddy Brand, Bill Bradham and Steve Powers have been routine. Wukela, who was elected as a reformer, has locked horns with the council on elections, downtown development and tax increases.
The driving issue has been over elections and whether the city should have nonpartisan instead of partisan elections. Some on council want to put the question on the ballot for Florence voters to resolve.
At the council meeting, members voted to pass an ordinance on first reading that would give council the authority to choose its own presiding officer, even though state law already allows it.
“The key to this action, without a doubt, is a vote of no confidence in the mayor,” Brand said in an interview with the Morning News. “Five council members voted for it. What we’re saying in essence is we don’t feel like we’re being led in the right direction.
“This ordinance would have never come to be if we felt like council was being run in accordance with normal rules and regulations. Council is being run as a courtroom, not as a council chamber. This is a peoples’ venue, not the Supreme Court, Congress or anything else.”
Wukela said he considered council’s vote to be an intimidation tactic to push him to support nonpartisan elections.
Even though Florence has a manager-council form of government, the mayor’s ceremonial role always has been important. He should have the ability to speak for the city, representing the council’s official views as well as his own.
If Wukela is removed as the presiding officer over meetings, his prestige will be undermined. When he calls or writes on behalf of the city, he needs to know he has the backing of the council, as well as the people who voted him into the office.
If Council passes the ordinance on second reading, with the votes to pick another chairman, any momentum Wukela has made on projects could be stopped.
When Wukela ran for mayor last year, we endorsed his opponents, former Mayor Frank Willis in the primary and former Mayor Rocky Pearce in the general election. Despite our opposition, we respect Wukela, his office and his victory. In less than a year, the council conceivably could push him aside. Some members think putting Wukela in another chair would improve the city’s and elected council’s performance.
It is the responsibility of council to make decisions in the best interest of Florence’s citizens. A majority of members feel strongly about the possibility of removing the mayor as the council’s presiding officer. They felt so strongly about it, they asked the attorney general for an opinion and introduced an ordinance to allow council to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson.
We believe the city council, like Florence County Council, should have the ability to elect its leaders and support passage of this ordinance.
— Unsigned editorials represent the views of this newspaper. Editorial Board members are Mark Laskowski (regional publisher), James Bennett (regional editor), Sam Bundy (sports editor), Kimberly Ginfrida (news editor), David Johnson (regional circulation director), Charles Tomlinson (Lake City News & Post editor) and Jackie Torok (metro editor).
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I looked it up and Robert’s Rules allows for debate to be ended by the “calling of the question.“ This can be done by two ways. 1) by a 2/3rds vote to call the question; or 2) by the Chair calling it. The language in Robert’s Rules for #2 says the chair “may” call the question. That’s discretionary, meaning, in this case, the Mayor does not have to call the question. Wukela has been up front that he chooses not to exercise his discretionary power to call the question on the non-partisan issue because he opposes it. There is nothing “illegal” about it. It is a procedural rule designed to protect the minority position’s right to debate.
Since Brand and Willis were always on the same page about things, he never had to deal with it. Now that he and the Chair don’t always agree, he wants to change the rules. In fact, on tv, it appeared that they actually wanted to change Robert’s Rules so that it read “shall” instead of “may.“ Contrary to the claim in previous posts that the Mayor has somehow acted illegally, Brand seems to be upset that the meetings are run like a “courtroom,“ with TOO STRICT an adherence to the rules.
Brand and Bradham showed during the period after the primary and before the general election what they thought of rules and laws. They think they are supposed to be there for their sole benefit. When their buddy Willis lost, they tried to change filing dates to help him. Then they tried to change the way elections were run so that such a loss would not happen again. And now they are trying to change the rules of council because they can’t get what they want. Apparently their idea of leadership is everyone letting them have their way.
Ok this is really my last post on this subject. While the decision to allow the voters to decide on the partisan/non partisan issue is very important. I believe the real issue is who is trying to abuse our local Government. Is it Wukela by intentionally or illegally miss handling meetings. Or is it the other Council Members who are trying to manipulate the system for their own benefit. I really don’t know the true answer, although I think I have made my opinion clear. I do know this though, There are seven people who were elected by the voters of Florence to run this City in the best intrest of the citizens of Florence. And that mission is not being fulfilled.
I think we’re all missing the single most important point about all of this. The decision regarding the partisan/non partisan elections should’nt be left up to the elected, but rather the voters. They inevitably removed that right from us.
Well, you might by right. It’s my understanding that what he did was arbitrary and without authority, except he did it in such a way that it could not be challenged at the meeting. Anyway, that is the reason they are trying to get the chairmanship away from him, the (either real or just perceived) abuse of the role of chairman.
Cardinal, Thanks for clearing up the missing post, I thought I was going goofy (would have been a short trip). Concerning the vote on the non-partisan vs partisan elections, that also frustrates me about the fact that these 3 members are afraid to let the voters decide what they want. But this was brought up in another forum. I went back and looked at the minutes from that meeting. The Mayor said that it took a 2/3 majority to pass and it did not receive the 2/3 to pass. I do not know what the City Charter calls out for. Sometimes when Ordinances or laws are changed they require more then just a simple majority. What I do know was that the City Attorney and City Manager were present at the meeting and I am assuming that if this was not legal one of them would have spoken up. With all the Talk and Complaints from the Council members that are pushing to strip the Mayor of the Chairmanship, none of them has brought up any accusations of him doing anything illegal. They are just complaining that he is not doing what they feel is right. To me that does not justify embarrassing the City or the Mayor and basically telling the voters that they don’t care who was elected to run the show, they are going to make up the rules to suit there needs, not the voters.
Reddog, you’re right about those two posts, I did post them and they’re not there now. They might have been pulled, but I don’t think they said anything provocative. I think what might have happened is that I had SCNow reset my profile because it wouldn’t let me upload an avatar. They said that would correct the problem, but it didn’t. What it did was wipe out my entire registration and I had to re-register. It probably wiped out any posts I had done, too.
About the Mayor and City Council… The first problem was that the prior Council, at the last meeting while Willis was Mayor, passed First Reading of an ordinance to make city elections non-partisan. Councilmen Robinson and Williams were furious that it passed over their objections.
When Mayor Wukela took office, he too wanted to keep the elections partisan. But, it was only him, Robinson and Williams, not a majority. So, he claimed some kind of parliamentary right as chairman to block the Second Reading, even though it was legitimately on the agenda as Old Business. When a councilman objected and appealed his ruling, the Mayor claimed that Roberts Rules of Order requires a two-thirds majority to overrule a ruling of the chair. His three votes were enough to prevent a two-thirds majority.
Problem is, both of his “rulings,“ the first one that removed the item from the agenda, and the second one, requiring the supermajority, were completely pulled out of his butt. They had no basis in Robert’s or any other sphere of reality.
The City just simply cannot be governed like that. It is a totally absurd situation that defies all reason. Somebody should have gone into court and gotten an injunction as soon as it happened. Now, it’s been allowed to fester much too long.
The reason they are trying to remove his as chairman is this abuse of the chairman’s prerogatives and power.
Cardinal, yes at least one of your post was pulled, I received an e-mail notification at 10:18 and it started “I consider the hateful and unsubstantiated comments about Councilman Powers inappropriate for this forum and have reported it as such.” I responded to it and TaxpayerToo also responded to it. I also received another notification at 11:45 AM, that was not posted, maybe I wrongly attributed it to you, if it is not yours I apologize. It started “Yes, brother RedDog, I share your frustration with brother Robinson’s shortcomings. But, please remember that we have all fallen short at one
time or another.” As for the article, I have read it several more times and I can find nothing saying that anything the Mayor is doing is illegal. All I can find is that several members of the Council who supported Willis and Pearce, for Mayor, are making accusations about Wukela without offering any proof of any wrongdoing. So I will ask this question again. What did the Mayor do that warrants him being stripped of the position of Chairman of the Council.
Because I choose to.
Good… because, as Congressman Frank said in the town hall meeting, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a dining room table.
That is not my main objection, it was an example.
I am done with you. I am willing to listen to your opinion but your a close-minded individual that can not respect someone’s opinion.
Cardinal:
You know what? Your right. Maybe I should NOT have expressed what I know as fact because I can not present the evidence to back them in this forum. But the bottom line is, I not ONCE, in any of my post, degraded, talked down to, or disrespected someones opinion.
I believe that you mentioned that you did not vote in the democratic primary, so what gives you a right to make any statements at all?
Advertisement