The Likely Reason Willard Can’t Find a Qualified City Administrator
A closer look at the Bill of Impeachment - No. 1
As many of you are probably aware, Willard Mayor Sam Snider will face a board of impeachment at a hearing this Thursday, October 26th, at 7 pm at the Willard Community Center next to Jackson Street Park.
That impeachment hearing was at least partially motivated by the combination of a questionable appointment made by the Board of Aldermen (discussed here) and the mayor’s subsequent firing of the appointee.
Prior to the hearing, I’ll try to knock out a few short articles regarding what I see as deficiencies in the Bill of Impeachment, along with how one of the aldermen spearheading the impeachment appears himself to be in violation of at least one count that’s been brought against the mayor.
No. 1 - Advertising
I do not know who authored the Bill of Impeachment (although the full Board did sign the document) but whoever it was should have at least consulted the Board’s own meeting minutes prior to doing so.
Regarding the ongoing search for a city administrator, under “Nonfeasance”, item #2 of the Bill reads as follows:
The city administrator position was left vacant in September 2022 after the resignation of former CA Brad Gray. It has been vacant for over a year—a very long time. Initially, the Board hired Steve Bodenhamer, Strafford’s former CA, to serve as interim city administrator until a replacement could be found.
Just to be clear, the Bill is referring to advertising from July through September ‘23. And the charge against the mayor is that he did not consistently advertise for the CA position during that time period. Remember those dates as the article progresses.
So how much advertising occurred prior to July 2023? I submitted a Sunshine Request to find out:
In February, March, April, and May of 2023, the City of Willard spent a total of $1645.00 to advertise the open city administrator position. In June, the City did not advertise the position. Why?
For the answer, let’s consult the Board’s meeting minutes from June 12th:
Now, it isn’t clear from the minutes who it was that said “it can get quite expensive if the [paid advertising] is just left to run.” Nor is it clear who suggested as an alternative the use of “free job posting websites.” But the above might explain why no monies were put toward advertising in June and, more importantly, why there was no paid advertising from July through September.
So, other than free advertising, how did the Board intend to find a new city administrator? The next item from the same meeting minutes tells us:
So it would appear that on June 12th, the Board decided to transition away from paid advertising and, instead, to “seek the services of a professional recruiter.” The Board even voted to do so. Note that two of the aldermen—Sam Baird and Corey Hendrickson—were not present at that meeting when those decisions were made.
But wait. It gets even more interesting. From the July 10th meeting minutes of the Board of Aldermen:
When the Board’s decision to hire a professional recruiter was made in June, it became the City Clerk’s responsibility to find potential firms to fill the role.
And, at the July 10th meeting, it isn’t one of the aldermen asking for an update regarding hiring a professional recruiter. Instead, it’s the mayor. And from the context of the meeting minutes, it sounds like this wasn’t the first time the mayor had asked the City Clerk for an update.
Again, note that Alderman Sam Baird is not present for this meeting either.
Finally, the minutes for the July 24th meeting of the Board contain this:
(The city planner—after less than a year with Willard—had tendered his resignation in early July.)
At the beginning of the discussion, it appears as if Alderman Baird isn’t aware that the Board had, in June, voted to hire a professional recruiter to find a city administrator, or that they had seemingly decided to abandon paid advertising.
Mayor Snider reminds him (and the rest of the Board) that they need to decide on “what [professional recruiting] firm…to use.” Perhaps Alderman Baird did not know about these decisions because he was absent from both meetings where the issues had been discussed.
Anyway, at the end of the proceedings, the Board determines that they “will evaluate and decide which direction to go at the next meeting.”
Wait! I thought the Board had decided in June to stop paying for advertising and to hire a professional recruiter (a very expensive proposition). And now that decision is up in the air? But I guess they’ll come to some consensus in August at their “next meeting,” right?
In August, there was only a single meeting—on the 14th. At the meeting, there is no mention of either advertising or of hiring a professional recruiter. The Board does not “evaluate and decide which direction to go” during this “next meeting.” And, once again, Alderman Baird is absent.
Then, of course, the meeting after that is September 11th. The mayor is out of town on city business. The Board, under the leadership of Mayor Pro Tem Sam Baird, appoints Donna Stewart as interim city administrator (click here to read about the questionable way in which that appointment was made). Mayor Snider fires Mrs. Stewart two days later on September 13th. Reportedly, two police officers are present as she leaves City Hall.
The day after the firing, September 14th, the Board holds a special meeting and votes to censure the mayor. At the following meeting on September 25th, Mayor Snider publicly apologizes, and Alderman Sam Baird introduces the Bill of Impeachment and sets a hearing for October 26th.
Getting to the point
Again, the key takeaway here is that when the Board made their June decision to pursue the services of a recruiter, it appears to have put an end to the Board’s desire for paid advertising. Yet the Board is currently seeking to impeach the mayor for, among other debatable charges, a lack of advertising from July to September:
And if advertising for the city administrator position is the direction in which the board did, at some point, decide to proceed, when did that decision occur? It’s not reflected in the meeting minutes. And what happened to their July 24th decision to “[re]evaluate [hiring a professional recruiter] and decide which direction to go?” That was three months ago.
They must have given up on hiring a professional recruiter in favor of advertising, right?
From the meeting agenda for later today, Monday, October 23rd:
The primary reason Willard has been without a CA for over a year
Quotes from two anonymous sources should provide some insight into how Willard’s elected government is viewed by at least some former staff and by other governmental organizations at large:
“Accepting a job with the City of Willard was the single worst decision of my entire career.” - Anonymous
“Willard is the most screwed up elected body we’ve ever seen.” - a paraphrase of remarks made by members of a governmental organization within this state
The City of Willard’s reputation among regional government and employment circles appears to have been so badly damaged by the long-standing inability of these four men—Sam Snider, Sam Baird, Landon Hall, and Corey Hendrickson—to work together (though to his credit, Mayor Snider has publicly apologized and taken responsibility for his actions) that I’d speculate that virtually no qualified candidate for city administrator has been willing to apply for the position. I’d also speculate that any qualified candidate that has applied very quickly realized they had made a mistake.
None of the responsibility for this fiasco lies with city staff. They have merely been stuck in the crossfire, probably left to grapple with whether to stick it out or quit, with many having chosen the latter option. Additionally, I know very little about the newer aldermen who took office in April 2023, so this isn’t directed at them either.
The supporters of the three seasoned aldermen continually find fault with the mayor; the mayor’s supporters seem to mainly fault the seasoned aldermen. The truth, at least as I see it, is that blame is shared by all four men.
And their inability to work together has turned the City of Willard into a “deeply poisoned well.” Particularly as it pertains to finding and retaining qualified key staff.
The City had, unfortunately, already acquired that dubious distinction prior to when I began writing about its elected government in September 2022. Even earlier, when I started attending meetings in June of last year, I recognized that something was wrong, even if I couldn’t put my finger on exactly what that “something” was. But what started out as a pebble in my awareness only grew, over many months, into a boardroom-sized boulder.
The public impeachment hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 7 p.m.
May city elections quickly followed by impeachments not become the “new normal.”