A year ago, Saint Charles City Council voted 7 to 3 approving a one-year contract with Dr. Allan Williams as City Administrator. The council reserved the right to decide whether or not to renew William’s contract after a one-year period of review. In November, the council chose not to renew the administrator’s contract and brought forward a compensation package per the original contractual agreement.
First Capitol News wanted to look into what events lead to William’s inability to muster six votes of approval by council. Here are some of the issues of concern gathered by our paper regarding this matter.
Williams came to St. Charles and there was much hope among council that he would help create an atmosphere in which the three councilmen of the opposition minority would work closer with the seven-member majority who entered city hall to try and end wasteful politics-as-usual. Early on, the majority advanced in several areas including re-bidding city employee health insurance that has resulted in a one-year savings of more than $700,000. However, as one councilman pointed out, this was achieved in spite of Mr. Williams, not because of his assistance. In fact, early on several council members noticed that the new administrator hindered efforts by council to perform its fiduciary duties including blocking a forensic audit of the health insurance prior to the change to the current provider, United Health Care.
More was expected and promised of the highest-paid city administrator in the metropolitan area. In fact, complaints have come from both sides of council regarding unanswered and unreturned telephone calls (this is particularly important because council members may not contact department heads without administration approval); slow response time or inaction on council requests; and the sluggishness of department head candidate interviews and proposal to council. Council has no direct ability to hire or fire any department head, and after losing or firing employee after employee, Williams has done little to fill the vacancies. One instance pointed out is the termination of the Public Works Director in which after seven months the administrator has brought only one name forward for council and mayoral consideration. To date, that is the only name for any open position that has been brought before the council with the exception of Police Chief Tim Swope.
Lack of communication and accessibility seem to be a regular point of frustration for many on council. Williams has yet to move his family to St. Charles. Because they still reside out of state, Williams is often gone for several days at a time and often not reachable by telephone. Travel expense for these flights are paid for over and above William’s base salary of $148,000 and his automobile expenses.
Another disappointment was the haste in which Williams went from role of mediator for all sides to that of one-sided ally of mayor and select council members. At one meeting, Williams seemed to have set a trap for Councilwoman Greer and then openly attacked her because he felt that her appeal for a department head to attend a budget meeting sounded more like a demand than a request. A few months prior, Williams had praised the same council member for being so organized and thorough in her duties.
In another instance, Mr. Williams ignored the opinion of all the city attorneys regarding a disputed bill allegedly owed by Councilman Mark Brown. Wasting the time of seven staff members and spending two days to get to the bottom of this supposed $225 charge resulted in a finding that the City in fact owes Councilman Brown $425! Mr. William’s actions give the appearance of helping developers harass council instead of doing the work of the people. To the chagrin of several council members, Williams is willing to expend great effort for $225 but impedes a forensic audit that could have resulted in thousands of dollars for city coffers and the discovery of possible corruption.
The proposed administration budget for 2006 is a sharp increase over that of 2005 in spite of budget warnings coming from city hall that indicate flat growth in city revenues. After advising council to tighten the belt on the budget, Williams then proposed inflated government causing many council members to question the fiscal prudence of Williams. Further concerns in this matter include William’s use of a city credit card for personal expenses, which is thought to be a violation of state law.
From the evaluations submitted, only one council member gave Williams high marks with several giving very low marks.
The courts will apparently decide William’s future because he now disagrees with the interpretation of the contract that he signed. Several council members have indicated that they plan on filing a case against Williams soon. In jeopardy is a severance package worth about eight months salary. Also per contract Williams would have received lifetime health insurance had he been re-approved and fulfilled a second year of service as city administrator.
One council member summed it up with the following: “We had great hopes for Mr. Williams and thought we might have gotten ourselves someone ready to help clean up rather than cover up things at city hall.”
