Council–manager system makes the mayor’s office ceremonial, not executive. It’s time for council to draw clear boundaries.
By Steve Segner / Guest Columnist
The very public clash between Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and Police Chief Stephanie Foley is troubling—but not just because of the complaints exchanged. The real issue is that the mayor has stepped into territory that does not belong to him.
Under Sedona’s council–manager form of government, the City Manager—not the mayor—runs the city, oversees departments, and manages staff. The mayor’s role is primarily ceremonial: presiding over council meetings, voting on policy, signing official documents, and declaring emergencies when needed. What the mayor does not do is supervise employees or direct department heads.
That line has now been blurred. When a mayor involves himself in HR disputes or questions the culture of the police department, he crosses into administrative functions that are strictly the responsibility of the City Manager. This is overreach, and it undermines the structure Sedona is bound to follow.
The risks are clear: staff morale collapses when they don’t know who is in charge, accountability disappears when roles overlap, and public trust erodes when elected officials appear to meddle in daily operations.
This controversy is not just about one mayor and one police chief—it is about protecting good governance. The City Council must step in and adopt a policy that clearly defines the duties of the mayor, along with the limits of the office.
And let’s be honest: the mayor’s office should not be housed in City Hall. Proximity to staff creates the illusion of executive authority that does not exist. The mayor’s role is not a job in the administrative sense—it is a ceremonial and legislative position.
Sedona deserves clarity. By reaffirming the separation between elected officials and professional staff, the council can restore order, protect employees, and rebuild public trust.
Editor’s Note: Steve Segner is a Sedona resident, local business owner, and frequent columnist/contributor on civic issues.
This is an advertisement
25 Comments
If the Mayor has referred the issue to the proper State or Federal oversight authority then he has done his job of remaining outside the issue. Not sure who would have made such a referral if not for him? Obviously there hasn’t been any routine oversight of the department from a State of Federal oversight authority and there are definitely some issues that have been made public that warrant such a move. The mayor so far as we know made no attempt to overstep his authority by attempting to fire anyone. From the information made available to us he simple acted on some anonymous complaints from unknown officers from within the department. What else could he do but make such a referral for an oversight investigation? Ignore the issues? Doesn’t make sense to have done anything other than what has/is being done. I just hope the oversight investigation will be done by proper law enforcement authorities and not some civilian city government administrator who knows zilch about Law Enforcement. Law enforcement demands oversight in order to prevent abuses by anyone wearing a badge and carrying a weapon to Protect and Serve. Lastly, an oversight investigation does not mean anyone is guilty of anything. It just means an issue was raised over the Chief’s leadership. That could be something that is very true or very wrong and only an investigation from an impartial source can determine what is true and what is not.
This is not an HR dispute it is an internal matter that requires outside oversight not city council oversight. Law Enforcement is a different animal than public works or city planning and there are Federal regulations that require outside sources to investigate. An alledged abusive Chief or an environment of hostility and toxic masculinity against her simply for being a woman both demand such an outside investigation. Cops who abuse their authority regardless of position are not cops anyone wants running a department or out on the streets. Just as cops who are chauvinist, racist, white supremacist, gang members, militia members do not belong in law enforcement.
Here are the normal procedures for dealing with such matters-
To have a police chief investigated in Arizona for misconduct, you should first try to file a formal complaint with the Internal Affairs Division of the police department or with the department’s civilian oversight board, if one exists. If that doesn’t lead to action, you can escalate the complaint by contacting the city’s Mayor’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, or the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. For serious misconduct, you may also consider filing a civil lawsuit or seeking the attention of the media to apply public pressure for an investigation.
Here are the steps to take:
1. File a Formal Complaint:
Internal Affairs: The first step is to file a formal written complaint with the police department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), which investigates misconduct. Check the department’s website or contact the precinct for information on how to file.
Civilian Oversight Board: Some cities have civilian oversight boards or review committees that handle citizen complaints against police. Research your city’s government structure to see if such a body exists.
2. Escalate Within the City Structure:
Mayor’s Office: If you don’t receive a satisfactory response from the police department, you can contact the Mayor’s office. While they may not conduct investigations themselves, they can exert political pressure on the police department to take your complaint seriously.
District Attorney’s Office: You can also contact the local District Attorney’s (DA) office. The DA’s office has its own investigators and may look into your case independently or even pursue criminal charges against the chief if warranted.
3. Contact State-Level Agencies:
Arizona Attorney General’s Office: For serious misconduct, the Attorney General’s Office, which serves as the chief legal and law enforcement officer in the state, may be able to get involved.
4. Consider External Action:
Media: If other avenues fail, consider sharing your story with the media. Media coverage can put significant public pressure on officials to address the complaint.
Civil Lawsuit: You can explore filing a civil lawsuit against the police chief or department for any harm caused by their actions. This process can be complex and is best handled by an attorney.
An Arizona city police department will investigate complaints of a toxic workplace through its internal affairs division, following a structured process that involves intake, investigation, and review. The specific procedures may vary by department, but they typically align with standard practices for administrative misconduct investigations.
Filing the complaint
Channels for reporting: A complaint can be filed by a civilian or an employee. It is usually submitted to the internal affairs (IA) division or a supervisor. Many departments also offer online forms or phone numbers for reporting.
Required details: The complainant should provide a clear and detailed account of the allegations, including who was involved, what occurred, and when it happened. Documenting incidents and potential witnesses can strengthen the case.
Anonymous complaints: Most departments accept anonymous complaints, but those from identifiable sources are often given more weight.
Non-retaliation policy: Departments typically have non-retaliation policies to protect those who report misconduct.
The investigation process
Complaint intake and classification: The IA division receives and reviews the complaint to determine its scope and whether it involves misconduct or policy violations.
Investigator assignment: An internal affairs investigator is assigned to the case to gather evidence. For less serious complaints, a supervisor may handle the matter.
Evidence gathering: The investigator collects all relevant evidence, including:
Reviewing reports, body-worn camera footage, and dispatch recordings.
Interviewing the complainant, witnesses, and the officer(s) involved.
Interviews and Garrity warning:
Officers are required to cooperate and answer questions truthfully during an internal investigation.
Under the Garrity rule, officers are given a warning that their compelled statements cannot be used against them in a criminal case.
Officers may have a representative, such as a union representative, present during the interview.
Report and findings: The investigator compiles all findings into a report and submits it to the police chief or other senior officials.
Timeline: Many internal investigations aim to be completed within 30 days, though more complex cases may take longer.
Outcomes and appeal
Possible findings: The investigation can result in several outcomes, including:
Sustained: The allegations were supported by the evidence.
Not Sustained: The evidence was insufficient to either prove or disprove the allegations.
Exonerated: The incident occurred but was lawful and in line with policy.
No Finding: The complaint was unsubstantiated.
Disciplinary action: If allegations are sustained, disciplinary action can range from reprimands to suspension or termination, depending on the severity and history of misconduct.
Appeal to ADOA: If an Arizona state employee is not satisfied with the agency’s response, they can elevate the complaint to the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA).
More-
To initiate an investigation into an Arizona city police department for alleged chauvinistic behavior, you must report the misconduct to various internal, state, and federal agencies. Because the misconduct involves discriminatory behavior and potentially a hostile work environment, multiple departments have jurisdiction.
1. File a formal complaint with the police department
The most direct first step is to file a complaint through the department’s own internal affairs division.
Method: Departments typically accept complaints in person, by mail, or through an online form.
Who investigates: The department’s Professional Standards Unit (Internal Affairs) is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by employees.
Confidentiality: Most departments make an effort to keep the complainant’s information confidential, but full anonymity may hinder an investigation.
2. Report to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST)
AZ POST is responsible for establishing and enforcing officer conduct standards statewide.
Purpose: The board has the authority to revoke or suspend an officer’s certification if they engage in misconduct, including unethical behavior.
Procedure: You can submit a citizen complaint form directly to AZ POST online.
What to provide: Your complaint should be factual and provide as much detail as possible. Making a false report is unlawful.
3. File a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice
For allegations of widespread systemic issues or civil rights violations, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) can launch an independent investigation.
Jurisdiction: Federal law prohibits discrimination and civil rights violations based on sex.
Procedure: You can submit a report through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division online portal. An investigation by the DOJ is one of the most powerful tools for accountability, as demonstrated by their past investigation into the Phoenix Police Department.
4. Contact the FBI for corruption or civil rights violations
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can investigate potential criminal civil rights violations and patterns of corruption within a police department.
Procedure: You can submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office.
5. Consult a lawyer
For legal guidance on the best course of action, it is recommended to speak with an attorney specializing in police misconduct and civil rights. An attorney can:
Help you navigate the complaint process.
Advise you on your rights and potential legal action.
Help you file a lawsuit if appropriate, which is sometimes possible following a violation of constitutional rights.
Disclaimer: Making a false report of police misconduct can result in criminal charges or civil action against you. Ensure your complaint is based on facts and provide accurate information to the best of your ability.
Good comments, but I understand that the city manager has direct contact with all department heads. Now let’s see what the law says: The Mayor, the Council, and the Law: Time for Clarity in Sedona.
In Sedona, confusion has recently flared between the mayor and the police chief, sparking a much larger question: What exactly is the role of our mayor, and where are the lines of authority drawn in city government?
Arizona is governed by one of the strictest Open Meeting Laws in the country. Council members cannot deliberate on city business outside of properly noticed meetings. This means no back-room conversations, no email “reply all” chains, no text groups quietly making decisions behind closed doors. All city business must be discussed in the open, with advance public notice, so that citizens can see and hear the process.
Just as important is the council–manager form of government, which Sedona has adopted. Under this structure:
The city manager is the chief executive officer. Every city employee, every department head—including the police chief—reports to the city manager, not to the mayor or council.
The city council sets policy and direction, approves budgets, and represents the community, but it does not run daily operations.
The mayor, despite the trappings of office, is primarily ceremonial: presiding over meetings, signing documents, and representing Sedona at official functions. The mayor is not a “boss” of city staff, and certainly not a supervisor of departments.
When elected officials bypass the city manager to give direct instructions or exert pressure on staff, they are undermining the very system Sedona depends on. It blurs the lines of accountability, creates workplace confusion, and exposes the city to risk.
And let’s not forget: all correspondence of city officials—emails, texts, letters—are public records. Even private devices are not safe havens; if a council member uses them to discuss city business, those records are subject to disclosure. This isn’t optional. It’s the law.
A Dangerous Mix of Proximity and Power
Part of the problem is that Sedona’s mayor is housed in City Hall itself. That proximity creates the illusion of executive authority where none exists. When the mayor can wander the hallways and strike up direct conversations with department heads, the line between policy and administration is crossed. Sedona’s charter never intended the office of mayor to be a full-time executive post. Yet, the optics—and the temptation—suggest otherwise.
Time for a Policy Reset
The solution is simple: the Sedona City Council must adopt a clear policy defining the “dos and don’ts” of the mayor’s office and council behavior.
No direct instructions to staff.
All communication with department heads is routed through the city manager.
Council emails limited to policy discussions, not management.
And perhaps most importantly: the office of mayor should not be physically housed at City Hall, where proximity creates confusion and inflates a ceremonial role into something it was never meant to be.
Sedona prides itself on transparency and fairness. If we want to live up to that ideal, it’s time to reinforce the boundaries that protect both staff and citizens.
Because here’s the truth: the mayor’s office is not a job—it is a role. The sooner our council acknowledges that, the better off Sedona will be.
The last line says it all. Every city employee, every department head—including the police chief—reports to the city manager, not to the mayor or council.
My post was not opinion it is AZ state law regarding City Police Department oversight when there are issues just like this. It needs to be investigated by the State and or DOJ and that is the bottom line due to the nature of the complaints going both ways. The Mayor acted properly in referring it out to be investigated. The question is to whom did he make the referral? If it was State or DOJ then he was 100% correct and within State statutes covering these sorts of issues. Now if he referred it to say a civilian panel he assigned that would be illegal. Those are the facts.
I agree with Steve. If the Mayor had a problem, talk to the city manager!
Council should clarify the boundaries of mayor or any other council member.
Have it in black and white.
He clearly crossed a line, and that must be addressed, no matter the outcome!
Steve and WS Dave,
you know I like and respect most of everything you have to say however in this case you’re both wrong. Jill posted the laws governing oversight for City Departments. They are part of City Government yes but they also fall under the prevue of State and Federal oversight when there are problems within them. Having the City Council in a Payton place like Sedona very much is and would be contrary to a proper investigation. In larger departments the issue would be referred to Internal Affairs but I doubt Sedona PD has such a thing due to its incredibly small size. The Chief and the Officers who have made complaints against her have the right to attorneys as well as Police Union representation regardless of where it ends up unless of course it ends up in front of the City Council where they have no investigative skills nor proper means to conduct a lawful investigation of these matters. The mayor hopefully did the proper thing here and referred the matter to either the feds or the state Ms Dougherty is 100% correct here as well in stating-
“2. Escalate Within the City Structure:
Mayor’s Office: If you don’t receive a satisfactory response from the police department, you can contact the (((Mayor’s office)).
The mayor’s law enforcement background and knowledge of how inside Departmental complaints are handled appears to be consistent and correct so long as he referred the issue to the proper authorities.
Regardless of what your feelings are for these individuals the law is the law and Sedona has proven incapable of resolving issues of its own on its own. Therefore it is time for outside intervention and oversight into the Department.
I know the mayor, the chief and know several of the officers under her command from coffee with a cop meetings, calls I have made where Sedona PD responded as well as casual conversations with them out in public. All seem professional and willing to abide by what the mayor has decided. It’s possible he has an axe to grind with the Chief but by referring the complaints to an outside agency for investigation he has essentially made himself inconsequential in the matter where he did not take action against anyone such as suspending them or firing them which would have been improper and illegal.
Steve you seem to know City Government laws and bi laws quite well but you lack the knowledge and insights as to how Law Enforcement is supposed to be governed when there are interdepartmental issues such as these. Do the research for yourself. Google anything you want about Arizona City Police Department oversight and you will see I am correct. I know I am correct because I have reviewed the State and Federal laws regarding oversight and I have several years first hand experience of how these matters should be handled just as the Mayor does.
My comment is not about oversight of the police department; that is the job of the city manager. All, I mean all, contacts should go through the city manager. That goes for the Mayor and all city council members. That is the chain of command. The mayor and the city council are aware of this, as I have been informed on numerous occasions. They can not help but call the city manager. The new article in the Red Rock News makes a good case that this policy has not been followed.
The chain of command is not the City Council regardless of whatever Sedona City Government wrote for itself. The chain of Command under AZ state law and Federal Law in these cases are as follows:
Chief of the Department
Union Representative(s) (which in this case is likely one of the officers in the department who are part of the complaints being made)
Internal Affairs (not applicable here due to the nature of the complaint as well as the size of the department)
The Mayor (whose job it is to refer issues like internal departmental strife to the proper outside agencies) that is an Executive function here.
State
DOJ/FBI
City council’s are not mentioned in any state or federal statutes that govern how interdepartmental issues such as these are addressed. There is good reason for these laws as many a small municipality have overstepped their authority and wrongfully fired Law Enforcement Officers and Chiefs to fill their political agendas rather than abiding by the laws that govern Law Enforcement Agency investigations. Officers and Chiefs of police are protected from City governments overstepping their authority. I fail to see how the Mayor’s decision to do so is in any way unlawful. If he does have it in for the Chief he certainly screwed himself out of any potential personal gains by having requested an outside source investigate both sides of what is going on here. Could be the Chief is abusive in her authority toward her subordinates. Could also be she is a good Chief just coming down hard upon officers who are chauvinistic or have acted improperly on the job (that’s what Chiefs of Police do). Could also be both. The only people who know the truth are those who work inside the department on a daily basis. The only way to find out is to have fresh eyes on the matter who are actually trained to investigate them not by a City Council who hasn’t a clue as to how all police in our country are regulated and overseen.
Mr Segnar
you would be correct in your assertion if the complaints about the department were from someone outside of it. Then the City Council could be tasked to investigate the complaint(s) but not to enforce any form of punishment. That again is the job of the State and Federal Government not a local one. County Sheriff’s are a different matter altogether as they are elected rather than appointed but still fall under state and federal oversight. They still have Internal Affairs and Unions but are not beholden to the City Governments they police. Sedona City Government only oversight responsibilities are to ensure their city has adequate police resources and Mutual Aid compacts with other agencies in the area to ensure that in the event of a mass casualty incident or major fire that resources are multiplied by sufficient resources to handle them. They can effectively decide traffic enforcement on City owned roadways, determine local noise ordinances and that sort of thing. They cannot by law and should not attempt to resolve police misconduct or interdepartmental issues as they require law enforcement investigations not City Council Old Boy decision making about law violations. If the Chief is abusing her position or the male officers complaining about her abuse are just being misogynistic toward her simply because she is a woman then there is a serious issue in that department and it needs to be addressed by professional outside investigation and oversight.
There are several alternatives to the city manager form of government, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Here are some common alternatives:
*1. Mayor-Council Form:*
In this system, the mayor serves as the chief executive and administrative officer, with significant authority over city operations. The city council acts as the legislative body, passing laws and approving budgets.
– *Strong Mayor*: The mayor has significant executive powers, such as veto power and appointment authority.
– *Weak Mayor*: The mayor’s role is largely ceremonial, with limited executive authority.
*2. Commission Form:*
In this system, a small group of elected commissioners serve as both the legislative and executive branches of government. Each commissioner is responsible for a specific department or area of city government.
*3. Town Meeting Form:*
This system is typically used in small towns and villages. Citizens gather to discuss and vote on local issues, budgets, and laws.
*4. Representative Town Meeting Form:*
This system is similar to the town meeting form, but citizens elect representatives to attend meetings and make decisions on their behalf.
*5. Hybrid Forms:*
Some cities use hybrid forms of government that combine elements of different systems. For example, a city might have a city manager and a strong mayor, or a commission form with a city administrator.
Each of these alternatives has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the best system for a particular city will depend on its unique needs, size, and culture.
Maybe it’s long overdue to look at what it would take to revamp the city government structure.
Pay the mayor and council. PAY THEM WELL. Get qualified council and a Mayor, chief executive, running the city instead of voting for retired folks, which in many cases use the positions to exercise ideological objectives, or bring failed policies, or programs and policies that are designed for cities 10 times our size.
Elect the Mayor, (CEO) for 4 years, and council terms for 2 years. What we have is backwards.
Clearly what we have had over the last several decades isn’t working.
Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
Michael is so correct, vote out home rule and revise the Sedona leadership asap!
If you vote out home rule many if not all of the cities non profit organizations will have to shutter. What’s the logic in that and what does it have to do with the Sedona PD? They will still fall under State and DOJ oversight.
it’s easy for to say things like have the mayor run for four year term and the council run for a two year term. All these decisions are set by the federal and state government. As for home rule. If it was to be voted out, there would be no city government. You can’t run a city of 30,000 people on a budget design for 8000 people .when I say 30,000 that’s what we have here on a Saturday.a town of 8000 might need a very very small government. That’s not Sedona. There’s nothing wrong with the government. There’s nothing wrong with our system like any business, You’re gonna have issues.the city. The last thing we need are train businessman in city government I can find almost all problems going back to people with business backgrounds cities and communities should not be run like a business. Their job is to supply services, not profits and frankly they’re much more a tune to the budget process than private businesses.
This agree with wholeheartedly. The problem in Sedona and our Country as a HOLE is greed and grift from the wealthiest people in business. They are not representative of Joe Working man as they all falsely claim. Nope, they’re Oligarchs who feed off of disinformation and divisions that bring them their precious Bigly Lifetime Tax Exemptions to them while taking Elonia’s chainsaw gifted to him (by a wealthy elitist insurrectionist psycho former DICKtator and of course Dump BFF asshole Bolsonaro) to it. They want a country where only the wealthy MAGA sycophants get rights and lots of financial security and benefits while everyone doing the work gets shit upon, wages cut to below living standards, social support networks such as social security and welfare eliminated, workplace safety and oversight eliminated so the wealthy CEO’s don’t get sued anymore for their out right criminal negligence, housing made un attainable for the middle and lower classes so the wealthy don’t have to see the product of their criminality just like the Nazi’s who hid their atrocities and criminality from the general masses. They want to live in their gated communities surrounded by brown and black shirted thugs to protect their ill gotten wealth while driving the poor and homeless to live out in bum fu@k Egypt.
The wealthy Oligarchs in Amsterdam have tried to do the same sort of inhumane unjust shit to its poor and down trodden twice now. And guess what? The poor and down trodden have violently revolted and physically kicked their wealthy asses right back!
That’s what happens to Oligarchs and DICKtators and that is exactly what will be happening here in our very lost un Democratic inhumane unjust country. It’s what has happened in every country with a DIcKtator leading it throughout history. The kettle is boiling and ready to overflow with angst and anger directed towards those responsible for it all!
Know the facts. Everyone should read the previous details and educate themselves before providing opinions on what they think has or is happening.
Previous Issue: An investigation was completed in relation to the hostile work environment allegations against chief foley made by the former deputy chief. NONE of the allegations were sustained against chief foley. They did however raise a number of concerns about the deputy chief and his actions. Almost all of which WERE sustained. In both cases the parties involved were afforded union representation, to include legal counsel (if the state charter or bill of rights allowed).
Current Issue: The Mayor is overstepping his authority, undermining the chief’s authority, and calling into question her decision making of a department he has no oversight on. If he has concerns he can bring them to the City Manager to be addressed. Otherwise, go shake some hands and vote on policy for the city. Continuing to question and provide undue influence to another department for which you have no managerial responsibilities is harassment. Surely he could find more productive activities for the city. Continuing to badger the female police chief and the female city managers (current and former) sends a message I’m sure he would rather not be sending.
Wrong. The Mayor is in the chain of command so to speak for complaints just like these in accordance with State Law. He referred the complaints out as he should have because they require an external review not an unnecessary and unlawful review by City Council who according to state law are not in any chain of command for local municipalities. Sedona may have written them into the chain of command in some by law or other illegal written guidance. City Governments have been found to take enormous overreach in cases just like these. So a State and or DOJ review is required. Google it for yourself and you will see what I say is 100% correct and though you may have some internal insight as to what has happened in the past your insistence that City Council is somehow first over the mayor is bunk and not backed by any fact.
Also, if you are on the city council or in Sedona PD you are talking about details that should not be made public to anyone outside the proper State/DOJ authorities until the case is closed.
I am not on city council nor in Sedona PD. The details outlined are all public knowledge as they have been reported on by multiple media outlets.
Also, I did not say anything about city council having authority to review. An external review was already concluded on one of the matters he has brought up and chief foley was found to have no wrongdoing. Seems like a bit of a witch hunt to remove a woman in authority who won’t bow down to his way.
The chain of command is from a Resident.the mayor or Council persons job is to direct them to the correct department or take it to the city manager. That’s exactly how it works with no exceptions. He is not allowed to call department heads or get involved on behalf of a resident. We have a city manager. that’s her job. she will then contact . the correct department because she understands the city and the overlap iof different departments and responsibilities.
Look up the State Laws which trump (🤮) any and all City laws and regulations. The City may have written what you claim into its own bi laws or rules but they are irrelevant to oversight of inter departmental strife.
City governments are sued all of the time for having enforced municipal laws that do not coincide with State and Federal laws.
And again this is not only an issue requiring fresh eyes from an outside source and the mayor having referred it to an outside source is exactly what State law dictates be done.
The City Manager runs the City infrastructure but has zero oversight authority of Sedona PD other than to refer local ordinances pertaining to traffic and safety issues to it.
Don’t believe me? Go talk to the Department’s Union Representatives and have them explain to you what the chain of command is in this specific case.
And which State or Federal laws are you quoting here exactly? You confuse City management with Law Enforcement oversight here. “The Mayor not allowed to call department heads” Since when? He has Executive Authority and is following State Law by referring the issues outside the City.
I doubt a single resident complaint is behind the problems going on inside the Sedona PD. There are problems that have existed in the department for years now and the City failed to rectify them. Time to do it properly and lawfully and that is exactly what is happening.
Jill I find part your arguing with yourself, but at the same time agreeing with the article? I do find it confusing?
You:” Sedona may have written them into the chain of command in some by law or other illegal written guidance. City Governments have been found to take enormous overreach in cases just like these”
Steve:”Sedona deserves clarity. By reaffirming the separation between elected officials and professional staff, the council can restore order, protect employees, and rebuild public trust.”
Me:’I agree with Steve. If the Mayor had a problem, talk to the city manager!
Council should clarify the boundaries of mayor or any other council member.
Have it in black and white.
He clearly crossed a line, and that must be addressed, no matter the outcome!”
Im not sure exactly, if it is written like you said fine. If it is not in black and while, getting in black and white!
Is that clearer?
I don’t disagree with that view. Sorry for the confusion. The City can write laws and regulations to their heart’s content. Doesn’t make them lawful nor right. State law trumps city and Federal trumps state.
I don’t think the mayor made anything personal by receiving an anonymous whistleblower complaint(s) about officer or the Chief’s misconduct. He took the complaint and referred it to the proper authorities. Perhaps he felt that had he referred the issues to the City Manager that they would not do as he has lawfully done by referring it out? Doesn’t matter what his logic was. What matters is he followed State and Federal law.
I guess if folks have heartburn about it they could petition for his resignation or removal but that would have to be in accordance with State and Federal laws too. Or they can vote him out next election cycle.
In my view the City Government as a whole needs outside review based upon its dysfunction and in fighting. But that’s just my opinion.
Understand both viewpoints. Jablow referring it out is proper. And possibly had he deferred it to the City Council or Manager they too would have done the right thing and referred it out. And then again they may not have? Either way it will be reviewed by a third party from outside the city and that is not a bad thing.
I think from my own research of State Law that Jill is correct on who is actually in the chain of command for such complaints. I see it as being similar to the military where a Commander is accused by subordinates of being abusive and rogue or where a female Commmander is unable to effectively lead due to biases against her solely for being a woman. Both parties could take it up the chain or they can file formal complaints through their Congressional Representatives and or Inspector General’s Office and never have to use the Chain of Command which is recommended but not required for GI’s to file complaints like these.
I’m going to see what happens. See who it was referred to and what their conclusions are. The State and DOJ cannot do anything more than investigate and make legal suggestions as to how those issues can best be solved. They do not have the authority to fire or punish anyone involved unless it is determined one or more individuals involved have broken state or federal laws. And even then they are required to refer their findings to a disciplinary panel which I believe is where City Government may have some say? They’ll still be restricted by State and Federal law as to what they can or cannot do so far as disciplinary action goes.