Chris is publisher of the Greene County Daily World. He can be reached by email at cpruett79@gmail.com or by calling (812) 847-4487

Mayor made the right decision by not answering question at meeting

Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 5:53 PM

Change is never easy for anyone.

When the change is done in public, it allows for public comment. Sometimes those comments or questions are handled in a professional way, and sometimes they're not.

That's the nature of the beast when it comes to political appointments.

Such was the case in Linton last week.

Mayor Tom Jones announced that Lonnie Eberhardt had resigned as chief of the Linton Fire Department. Eberhardt was replaced by Gary Tannehill, and he was sworn in at Monday night's Linton City Council meeting.

After Tannehill was sworn in, a fellow firefighter asked Jones and the City Council why Tannehill was chosen as chief, and not someone who has more experience.

Comments on the newspaper's Web site -- www.gcdailyworld.com -- have questioned the move, saying other firefighters deserve the position because they have more time with the department.

They're all legitimate questions. And the firefighter should be commended for questioning the move. There's nothing wrong with such actions, and elected officials should be held accountable.

Jones and the City Council didn't answer the firefighter's question Monday, and though some believe they should have, they acted appropriately.

The mayor of a third-class city is the person who appoints or dismisses the fire or police chief. That's part of his/her responsibilities, according to "Here is Your Indiana Government," a publication that outlines state, county, and local government.

Jones could have explained his decision, but he opted not to open a can of worms in a public meeting, especially with the new chief's family in attendance.

The chance of something being said by someone that was inappropriate was pretty high. Jones has seen such things happen in the past.

He opted to listen, and then move on with the meeting.

Some are criticizing Jones for not speaking on the subject. Actually, Jones should be commended.

He isn't required by law to explain why he selects someone to be police or fire chief. The public will ultimately decide if he made the right choice(s).

What he shouldn't do is bring up -- or comment on -- personnel issues in a public meeting. Those discussions should be conducted in private. If a council member has a problem with the mayor's decision, it should be discussed in an executive session or during a one-on-one meeting with the mayor.

City business (not personnel issues) must be done in public, and Jones did the right thing by not discussing Tannehill's appointment during the public meeting.

In this 'sue-happy' world, all it would take is one unintentional slip of the tongue by Jones or a council member -- or a member of the public -- and the city could be held liable.

The firefighter and others have every right to question Jones' selection of Tannehill as fire chief. He's now in charge of a department the citizens of Linton and Stockton Township depend on, and getting the right person to lead the way is important.

Yes, there are members of the department with more experience. But the mayor isn't required to explain his decision to the other firefighters, just like the boss of a private business isn't required to explain why someone with less experience was promoted.

The difference is the boss of the private business isn't elected by the public, and that happens every four years with the mayor.

So the public ultimately has the final say.

Yes, the mayor should explain most of his decisions to the people who elected him and pay his salary. But when it comes to personnel issues, the mayor understands he can't put the city at risk of a lawsuit by commenting in a public meeting.

Chris is the general manager/editor of the Greene County Daily World. He can be reached by telephone at 847-4487 or 1-800-947-4487 or by e-mail at cpruett79@hotmail.com

Comments

View 16 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... mum's the word?

-- Posted by Paul on Wed, Sep 10, 2008, at 10:25 PM
Please cite the legal precedence where a city, such as Linton, has been held liable for the "slip of the tongue" by a member of the public.

You just set journalism back to the dark ages.

Who, what, when, where, and why. Emphasis on the why is never out of order. Not in a free society.

-- Posted by Globe&Anchor on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 4:51 AM
Doesn't our constitution give us the right and responsibility to question Government? Local or federal. If I were a citizen of Linton and an ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, refused to answer a question in a PUBLIC forum, I would wonder about it. The fire dept serve the community,which depends on the department's professionalism, capabilities, and experiance.

You, the people of Linton have a right to ask the question,aswell as receive an answer.

Mum should never be the word about such mattters.

Especially when your lives and the lives of your loved ones could be at stake.

For this paper to defend such "backroom" politics is a disgrace to Thr fine folks of Linton, and a slap in the face of our Veterans,who fought to keep the right to question all things done by ELECTED offcials. SHAME,SHAME. David L. Pittman

-- Posted by C&D on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 7:09 AM

Chris Pruett's response:
It clearly says in the blog that the firefighter should be commended for asking, and they have every right to ask. The mayor, though, doesn't have to respond to personnel questions in an open, public meeting. As it's stated in the blog, the citizens of Linton will have the final say on if they think the mayor should have answered.
Can you folks not comprehend what was written in the article? It is State law that the Mayor appoints whom he pleases, regardless of experience or years of service, there is not any guidelines for the mayors choice. He could have even picked a friend off the street without fire or ems experience at all! IT IS HIS CHOICE! We do not have to like it but that is the cold hard facts.

He doenst have to give reason for it either, his job is to run the city as a business and appoint all department heads with whom he chooses and as he sees fit! It is the law of Indiana for a City of Lintons size.

-- Posted by SEAL on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 10:57 AM
Can you folks not comprehend what was written in the article? It is State law that the Mayor appoints whom he pleases, regardless of experience or years of service, there is not any guidelines for the mayors choice. He could have even picked a friend off the street without fire or ems experience at all! IT IS HIS CHOICE! We do not have to like it but that is the cold hard facts.

He doenst have to give reason for it either, his job is to run the city as a business and appoint all department heads with whom he chooses and as he sees fit! It is the law of Indiana for a City of Lintons size.

-- Posted by SEAL on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 11:00 AM
"The citizens of Linton will have the final say"

is an ages old argument that is as invalid now as it was the first time it was used. Majority rule is the law of the land as long it does not trample on individual liberties. Hidden agendas

and secret personnel policies are a couple of the reasons this society is overwhelmed with the "sue-happy" world that we have brought upon ourselves.

If a decision is above-board and straight-forward why would one hesitate to discuss the decision?

-- Posted by Globe&Anchor on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 12:01 PM
When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.

Thomas Jefferson

-- Posted by C&D on Thu, Sep 11, 2008, at 12:42 PM
How is appointing a fire department chief of the city of Linton a personal issue? I think Gary will make a good chief I have no problem with the choice but I don't know how you can possibly call it a "personal issue" it is definately a public issue.

-- Posted by hoosier_ladee on Fri, Sep 12, 2008, at 8:26 AM
Personnel not personal

-- Posted by JimmyJoeJingle on Fri, Sep 12, 2008, at 8:30 AM
life in the big machine.

-- Posted by rnbrm7839 on Fri, Sep 12, 2008, at 8:55 AM
For those who care about facts: Appointment of ALL Department heads is the sole discretion and appointment of the Mayor of a second class city. The Mayor of that city type does not have to get the approval or even discuss his appointments with the City Council because it is the province of the Mayor to make that appointment.

Choosing a department head is a personnel issue. By law, personnel matters are not to be discussed in public. The Mayor's reasons for the appointment cannot be stated in public, especially comparing Mr Tannehill's qualifications versus anyone else's because those matters are private. To be frank, seniority and experience are not the sole considerations for appointment, nor should they be (IMHO).

There is no way that the Mayor could have discussed those matters in public without inviting lawsuits against the City and the Mayor which would have been extremely costly.

Until the laws are changed, these matters will likely never be discussed in a public meeting.

Similarly, when this paper reported that someone called out Debbie Haseman at a public meeting, and discussed her performance, that is not only wholely inappropriate and unprofessional, it is against the law. As a member of the Board of Directors, the offender should know that kind of thing before putting the organization in jeopardy of a lawsuit.

Some things in this country are still private. Personnel matters, medical, mental, and health issues are still private and CANNOT be divulged. Promotions, demotions, disciplinary matters, etc. are to be done in private.

-- Posted by Greenee on Sat, Sep 13, 2008, at 12:46 AM
I don't understand why there would be a law against a mayor discussing his choice in public(i'm not saying there isn't one, i'm sure there is.), he does work for the public. I think if he(the mayor) doesn't want to answer for his choices he should not be in public office.

-- Posted by lintonite on Sat, Sep 13, 2008, at 3:03 PM
Blogger: you make accusations, without foundation, and you speak like you can read the minds of people. You don't know what the Mayor was thinking unless he told you, and by your post, clearly that is not the case.

You say he didn't choose who was most qualified -- by YOUR definition of qualification. Experience and seniority are NOT the only two considerations. I've worked many places where the people with the most experience or the most years served are passed over for promotions like department head or Chief.

The more I read here the more I wonder who's taking drugs that cause them to be paranoid and jump to conclusions. It is irrational to always assume that someone is doing things to "screw" the people or for "political reasons" or "because of a conspiracy" of some kind. Sometimes decisions are just made because that is what the person wants to do.

The Mayor was elected by citizens who put their trust in him that he will make the right decisions. Tom Jones has done what he believes is best for Linton since he took office. If you disagree with him, that is your right. There is no good ol boy system here. If there were -- whomever you think should have been selected would have been because he would have been on the inside of the good ol boy system. It was a surprise that Mr. Tannehill was selected because he is NOT one of the good ol boys.

-- Posted by Greenee on Sun, Sep 14, 2008, at 5:26 PM
Let me see, I posted a message and isn't it funny that it has been deleted!!!???

-- Posted by MYNANA on Mon, Sep 15, 2008, at 3:50 PM
I've read "it is state law", "it is the law", and I have no doubt that all of the above scholarly attorneys want me to believe it. But they have failed to state the Indiana Code that is applicable. I don't believe an Indiana Code exists that says: a mayor, any mayor, can do whatever they d--- well please when it comes to personnel issues. If such an Indiana Code exists then it will be in our collective best interests to get it overturned; which undoubtedly will not present a great deal of difficulty.

-- Posted by Globe&Anchor on Mon, Sep 15, 2008, at 5:23 PM
Not only is it law, but discussing personnel issues publicly opens the door to legal action.

I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but who would have been a better choice? One could make an argument for and against anybody with their horse in the race.

The chief needs an innate knowledge of firefighting, but it is also requires some PR ability. They would need to fight for the department, while continuing a good working relationship with the rest of the city departments. Not to mention the public. Some of the other guys would struggle with the PR part.

It isn't about who has been there the longest...it is about who possesses the ability to do all of the job. Time will tell if Mayor Jones made a good call.

-- Posted by GCC on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 9:12 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register