WESTFIELD – At Thursday’s City Council meeting, the job description for the new position of Chief Financial Officer was once again the subject of an extended discussion. At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty asked for a motion to suspend the rules and recall the item from the Finance Committee, which had not been able to meet since the last meeting and discuss the amendments Flaherty made to it. At that meeting, the Personnel Action Committee (PAC) chair and At-large Councilor Cindy C. Harris had moved to give the job description over entirely to the Finance Committee.
Westfield City Council (WNG file photo)
Finance Committee chair and Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr. said he did not support Flaherty’s changed job description. Paul said after good work done on it by the Mayor and the PAC, he believed the core criteria of the job is there, and amending it was not something that needed to be done to ensure the Finance Committee’s goals for the position are met.
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell noted that a lot of work was put into the amended job description.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy said that even if the (amended) job description were voted, it still would have to go to Legislative & Ordinance, which he chairs, because the City Council is not the appointing authority to rewrite the ordinance. The ordinance for the new CFO position is currently in the L&O sub-committee.
Flaherty said the ordinance should have been created first, then the job description. The crux of the amendments created by Flaherty was to change the appointing authority for the position from the mayor to the city council. Flaherty added that if the City Council had a CFO that worked for them, they could consult with him on the Mayor’s budget reduction plan, presented earlier in the meeting. He said the City Council needs “unbiased, clear, professional advice on financial matters.”
At-large Council John J. Beltrandi, III asked L&O for options. Paul responded, saying that the job description was proposed by the Mayor, worked on with the PAC, and the next thing to do would be the ordinance. “We all agreed to go with the CFO. I don’t think we should sit here and question whoever is the mayor,” he said.
After some back and forth about why the Finance Committee did not meet on a question from O’Connell, which was answered due to conflicting schedules of the members, Council President Brent B. Bean, II said the job description shouldn’t have been in Finance to begin with.
Flaherty said it wasn’t fair to ask them (Finance) to turn it around in two weeks. “When PAC investigates these things, they ask the city,” Flaherty said, adding that they take their recommendations 100% of the time. “It’s not about controlling the Mayor, but being able to ask questions in a non-political way,” he added. The way it is written, that person works for the mayor, treasurer and assessor, he said.
“Every sub-committee relies on City Hall experts,” Bean said. He added that he was on the same page as Flaherty in terms of the appointing authority being the City Council.
“People don’t trust a committee to do their job, don’t go to sub-committee meetings, then it timed out. We’ve got to use the committees we have,” said Figy.
“I think it’s very unfair of you to attack PAC. We meet every two weeks. You say we approved all job descriptions. Did not all of you? Yes, every job description,” said Harris.
“I’m sorry, I don’t mean to attack PAC. I’m just sorry for the way it worked out. It’s a mess,” Flaherty said.
“We did have the chance to do all of this in a meeting,” said PAC member and Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski. “It seems the council is shooting itself in the foot,” he added.
Dondley, who had earlier said that he has asked for impartial advice from the city auditor, asked where they were at in the original motion to suspend the rules. After review, a motion to recall the job description from the Finance Committee was voted down, 10 to 3.
Paul then made a motion to accept the job description as it came out of the Personnel Action Committee.
Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski said she would vote no, because it made good sense to her to create the ordinance for the new position before voting for a job description.
The Council then voted 7-6 in favor of the job description. “Even though there’s a job description, there’s no reason that modifications can’t be made to it,” Harris said following the vote.
Paul agreed, saying the Mayor has been transparent, and is taking suggestions. Following the meeting, Mayor Brian P. Sullivan also said he was open to suggestions for the brand-new position, which had been budgeted for half a year and approved by the City Council.
Bean deliberated for some time to give his yes vote for the job description. After the meeting, he said the job description for him was fine, but he did have some thoughts on who appoints, which he said he would bring up during later discussions. “It’s a process,” he said, adding, “It’s more about who appoints than the job description.”
