By Tom Morphet

While assembly members who voted against the termination of borough manager Robert Venables May 13 described it as "underhanded" and "low," assembly members supporting the termination gave differing opinions this week of how the matter was handled.

Mayor Fred Shields raised the firing at the end of the meeting, and the item wasn’t on the agenda, a departure from borough policy.

Member Pete Lapham said the action was justified but that Venables and assembly members should have known in advance the matter was coming up. "People shouldn’t be blindsided."

Lapham, who voted for the termination, said the public has lost "a little" trust in the assembly for the manner in which it was handled. "It would seem like there would have been some discussion through an executive session… It could have been done a lot better than it was."

Lapham said mayor Fred Shields had spoken to him about a week before about terminating Venables, but Lapham didn’t know the vote was coming.

Member Steve Vick said he didn’t think the assembly did anything illegal or improper, but said he was expecting Venables’ employment would have been handled in a more public manner. "It’s important to keep the public involved and put things on the agenda."

Vick said Shields talked to him about the matter two weeks ago, but he didn’t know Shields was going to broach the issue at the meeting. "I was disappointed there wasn’t more opportunity for people to speak or the assembly to know (in advance) the vote was coming. We could have moved into executive session," Vick said.

The vote wasn’t underhanded, but he could see how it would have that appearance, he said. "It caught us off guard in some ways. I was disappointed in the way it happened, but I don’t think (advance notice) would have changed the outcome."

Member Deborah Vogt declined comment on whether Venables, the full assembly or the public was owed advance notice of the vote on termination. She said she had no misgivings about the firing but said "it would have been nice to have happened in a less abrupt way."

When the vote came, she hadn’t spoken to Shields about Venables for at least several days, she said.

Vogt said no trust was violated by the assembly’s action and that Venables’ termination was an ongoing topic among assembly members. "My sense is the mayor got fed up and asked for the vote." She said Venables couldn’t have believed the assembly was happy with his performance.

Member Norm Smith said he didn’t have any misgivings for how the firing was handled. He said he hadn’t spoken to Shields about Venables for more than a week before the meeting and was "frankly quite surprised" by the way it came up. He said the matter didn’t have to be on the agenda.

"Procedurally it could have occurred differently," but the manager’s contract allows the assembly to dismiss him at any time, he said. "There doesn’t need to be a public discussion on whether the assembly is seeking to find another manager… The public was along on the decision (because) we’re public officials."

Asked if he felt the public’s trust in the assembly was eroded by the manner of the firing, he said, "If there were such an erosion, people wouldn’t get re-elected… If somebody else wants this job, they can have it."

Member Doug Olerud, who has been most critical of the action, said Shields had talked to him about firing Venables on the day of the meeting, but Olerud assumed he was venting, and Shields didn’t say he’d be raising the question at the meeting.

Olerud said the termination vote may have been legal, but it wasn’t right. There should have been public notice of an executive session, where assembly members laid out their arguments, he said.

It’s hypocritical that members faulted Venables for not sharing information, then fired him in such a secretive way, he said.

Olerud said Venables and Shields had disagreements over authority. The borough is organized as a "strong manager" government, with considerable clout granted the manager, who works for the assembly.

Previous to government consolidation, Haines had two governments, each under a "strong mayor" form. Shields served as mayor about 15 years ago under the previous structure, and the lines of authority may have became blurred since his election in 2005, Olerud said.

"People used to go to the mayor and he’d do the deal, but that’s not the case anymore." Olerud said before the next manager takes over, the assembly, mayor and manager should clearly lay out lines of authority.

Lapham and Vick said they would support such a discussion. Vogt said the firing didn’t involve authority issues between the two positions. Smith didn’t respond to the question other than to say his vote was based on previous experience with Venables.