Parham: I'm Done Trying to Fire Galletly
"I am done trying to fire Galletly," Larry Parham told The Observer this week. "We need to make the city whole again, get over this, and wait for the April elections," he said.
But at Tuesday night's City Council meeting the gloves came off as he took city manager Bill Galletly to task for not readily providing him contracts from APAC Construction on the 18th street bike path, which he says was built without Council approval; his denial of a request to place on the Agenda the matter of termination of Galletly, and Parham's direct dealings with several city employees, which is against state statute Title 11 Section 10-107.
As to the legality of the bike path construction, Acting City Attorney Ron Cates said he had not read the contracts and could not offer a legal opinion until he had an opportunity to read them.
Galletly said the explanation was simple: A previously approved bike path at a cost of $161,000, based on concrete and extending down Shundi to 9th street, was removed at his request when the construction bid came in at more than $500,000 over engineer's estimates. The bid for construction was "quantity bid" and included X tons of asphalt some of which was leftover from the roadway portion so the decision to use the leftover amount on the bike path was made. The asphalt pathway is on 18th street only and cost $48,000 and "we are still $29,000 under the bid and the entire project is finished."
Parham and Councilman Gary Bishop are upset that they were not given the opportunity to OK the asphalt path.
Cates said "we have an issue, perceived differently, and it needs to be reviewed as to whether the bike path construction is lawful or unlawful" and said he would review the documents and offer a legal opinion. Council then approved the Purchase Order Register with the exception of payments of $54,441 and $995 for the 18th street construction project.
Last week Parham went to City Hall and demanded that the matter of employment issues of Galletly be put on the Agenda for Executive Session, a meeting which involved City Clerk Bonnie Buzzard, who works for Galletly, not the Council. Buzzard was put in the middle of a volatile situation which upset her to the point of having to take two days of sick leave.
According to state statute, only the City Manager and City Treasurer report to Council; "Council and its members may not give orders on ordinary administrative matters to any subordinates of the city manager either publicly or privately." (Title 11, Sec 10-107, Limitation of Council Authority).
Galletly said "we have a policy for issuing information. People who wish information file a written request with the receptionist who in turn gives it to the City Clerk and City Manager who respond with the information. One cannot just walk into employee's offices and demand they stop work and answer their request. This policy came about a couple of years ago after the Earl Shero matter," Galletly said.
Galletly suggested that the council and city staff have a joint work session to work out these issues for the future and Council agreed.
On June 6 Council voted 5-0 to terminate Galletly as City Manager but rescinded the vote Aug. 4 since they could not agree on the third version of a consulting contract offered to Galletly. At issue was a "hold harmless" clause in this contract.
Council went into Executive Session at 8:19 p.m. on the matter of litigation from Gary Metcalf v. City of Grove and came out at 8:52 p.m., taking no action on the issue.
In other Council action Tuesday night,
--the winning entry in the city Flag Contest was selected (see separate story)
--deleted the matter of entering into negotiations with GRDA for long-term land lease agreement.
--approved a Bonfire for Sept. 28 for Grove High School Student Council, provided the current burn ban is no longer in effect.
--approved fees of $5,440 to LandPlan Consultants for Grove Streetscape Phase 2 work with ODOT.
--heard an update from Precision Communications regarding a new wi-fi system (see separate story)
--denied a tort claim from Sherri Alberin who slipped in the city's swimming pool.
--denied a request from Sheep Shed Ministries for waiver of Civic Center fees; however Councilman Gary Bishop offered to pay the fee of $500 for the group, with Councilman Parham then offering to pay half of the $500.
--approved a street closing request to the Grove Chamber of Commerce for Sept 14 Cruise Nite.
--heard from Allied Waste Services regarding contract revisions on trash pickup (see separate story)
--moved the location of the new Verizon Cell Tower due to problems in acquiring the land at the previously approved location, with the new tower now planned to be built on city owned property.
--tabled action on a request from former city attorney Dorothy Parker for payment of her legal expenses in conjunction with the Grand Jury investigation last June.
--authorized the Mayor to sign a grant agreement with FAA for land purchase at the Grove airport.
But at Tuesday night's City Council meeting the gloves came off as he took city manager Bill Galletly to task for not readily providing him contracts from APAC Construction on the 18th street bike path, which he says was built without Council approval; his denial of a request to place on the Agenda the matter of termination of Galletly, and Parham's direct dealings with several city employees, which is against state statute Title 11 Section 10-107.
As to the legality of the bike path construction, Acting City Attorney Ron Cates said he had not read the contracts and could not offer a legal opinion until he had an opportunity to read them.
Galletly said the explanation was simple: A previously approved bike path at a cost of $161,000, based on concrete and extending down Shundi to 9th street, was removed at his request when the construction bid came in at more than $500,000 over engineer's estimates. The bid for construction was "quantity bid" and included X tons of asphalt some of which was leftover from the roadway portion so the decision to use the leftover amount on the bike path was made. The asphalt pathway is on 18th street only and cost $48,000 and "we are still $29,000 under the bid and the entire project is finished."
Parham and Councilman Gary Bishop are upset that they were not given the opportunity to OK the asphalt path.
Cates said "we have an issue, perceived differently, and it needs to be reviewed as to whether the bike path construction is lawful or unlawful" and said he would review the documents and offer a legal opinion. Council then approved the Purchase Order Register with the exception of payments of $54,441 and $995 for the 18th street construction project.
Last week Parham went to City Hall and demanded that the matter of employment issues of Galletly be put on the Agenda for Executive Session, a meeting which involved City Clerk Bonnie Buzzard, who works for Galletly, not the Council. Buzzard was put in the middle of a volatile situation which upset her to the point of having to take two days of sick leave.
According to state statute, only the City Manager and City Treasurer report to Council; "Council and its members may not give orders on ordinary administrative matters to any subordinates of the city manager either publicly or privately." (Title 11, Sec 10-107, Limitation of Council Authority).
Galletly said "we have a policy for issuing information. People who wish information file a written request with the receptionist who in turn gives it to the City Clerk and City Manager who respond with the information. One cannot just walk into employee's offices and demand they stop work and answer their request. This policy came about a couple of years ago after the Earl Shero matter," Galletly said.
Galletly suggested that the council and city staff have a joint work session to work out these issues for the future and Council agreed.
On June 6 Council voted 5-0 to terminate Galletly as City Manager but rescinded the vote Aug. 4 since they could not agree on the third version of a consulting contract offered to Galletly. At issue was a "hold harmless" clause in this contract.
Council went into Executive Session at 8:19 p.m. on the matter of litigation from Gary Metcalf v. City of Grove and came out at 8:52 p.m., taking no action on the issue.
In other Council action Tuesday night,
--the winning entry in the city Flag Contest was selected (see separate story)
--deleted the matter of entering into negotiations with GRDA for long-term land lease agreement.
--approved a Bonfire for Sept. 28 for Grove High School Student Council, provided the current burn ban is no longer in effect.
--approved fees of $5,440 to LandPlan Consultants for Grove Streetscape Phase 2 work with ODOT.
--heard an update from Precision Communications regarding a new wi-fi system (see separate story)
--denied a tort claim from Sherri Alberin who slipped in the city's swimming pool.
--denied a request from Sheep Shed Ministries for waiver of Civic Center fees; however Councilman Gary Bishop offered to pay the fee of $500 for the group, with Councilman Parham then offering to pay half of the $500.
--approved a street closing request to the Grove Chamber of Commerce for Sept 14 Cruise Nite.
--heard from Allied Waste Services regarding contract revisions on trash pickup (see separate story)
--moved the location of the new Verizon Cell Tower due to problems in acquiring the land at the previously approved location, with the new tower now planned to be built on city owned property.
--tabled action on a request from former city attorney Dorothy Parker for payment of her legal expenses in conjunction with the Grand Jury investigation last June.
--authorized the Mayor to sign a grant agreement with FAA for land purchase at the Grove airport.
posted by Editor | 1:30 AM
20 Comments:
"I am done trying to fire Galletly,"
Yet Mr. Parham comes right after the City Manager over the construction of a bike path that was already approved previously by Council, and that is obviously a win/win situation for the City... within budget, and required an on site decision by the City Manager. I just don't get it.
There seem to be 2 things that are consistent and constant during all of this turmoil...
1. A well qualified and honest City Manager and many competent City employees have been working hard and doing their best to properly manage growth within the bounds of a limited budget and make Grove a better place to live for ALL citizens.
2. Certain folks or maybe many, maybe a faction or two, obviously have an agenda and see Galletly as a man that stands in their way. Maybe he doesn't want to play their game? Maybe he doesn't play their politics? Maybe he doesn't curry favors? Maybe he doesn't go to the right Church?
I hope that the citizens of Grove would ask themselves these questions before casting judgement on the present administration of the City, which is professionally managed and day by day becoming more competent and more alligned with the interests of ALL the citizens of Grove and not just a few.
I would also hope that the citizens of Grove ask themselves these questions as they, in Mr. Parham's words, "...wait for the April elections..."
And Yes, Mr Parham is up for reelection in April.
That is interesting this comment is from anonymous. lets get one thing straight. The bike path is needed! nobody that i no of and certainly Mr Parham has said it is not! The issue is how it got there without the approval of counsil once it was taken out of the original and final contract. Mr Galletly says it is there because of excess asphalt. Well there are two unaswered questions to that. Why did we have so much left over asphalt to pave a 6' wide 4" thick bike path from the Grove bank all the way to the Sports complex. That is a LOT of excess asphalt. Next did the contractor just lay all this asphalt for free?? What is the $54,000 dollar check for? OK thats three questions!
Thats the problem to many unaswered questions.
I don't know exactly all the answer's to Mr. Kyman's questions and concerns. I believe Mr. Galletly addressed many of these in the Council meeting, but I will give my opinion.
1. "That is interesting this comment is from anonymous..."
Did you ever think that maybe many of us that support the City staff, if we post at all, we might post "anonymous" due to fear of the same type of retaliation that Mr. Galletly has experienced from some in Grove?
2. "The issue is how it got there without the approval of counsil once it was taken out of the original and final contract."
The bike path was approved by Council, originally for $161,000; it was removed by Mr. Galletly, evidently within his perogative in order to stay within the approved budget. When it became apparant that at least part of it could be constructed and stay within budget, he made the on-site decision to proceed. The contractor was there, the equipment was there, the asphalt was paid for and available. Maybe if Mr. Galletly had waited to put the issue on the Agenda and bring it before Council for debate... I reckon the contractor would have moved on to other projects and the City would be stuck with a big pile of paid for asphalt and no bike path.
3. "Why did we have so much left over asphalt to pave a 6' wide 4" thick bike path from the Grove bank all the way to the Sports complex. That is a LOT of excess asphalt."
A "LOT" of excess asphalt compared to what? I imagine the engineers estimated the total amount of the asphalt for the project and then padded it some, maybe as much as 5-10% so as to be sure and have enough. You dang sure don't want to run short and have to go back and buy more and go over the budget and pay the contractor while your waiting for that. Besides, the amount needed for the bike path when compared to the total used for the project including a heavy load bearing street may not be a "LOT" at all. It may only be 1% or 2% or less of the total amount for all we know.
4. "Next did the contractor just lay all this asphalt for free??"
No. In the article it says Mr. Galletly said it cost $48,000 for the 18th street portion only, much less than the $161,000 originally approved by Council.
5. "What is the $54,000 dollar check for?"
I don't know, I don't even know if it is for the bike path at all, or if there are miscellaneous charges; but I imagine the Council would know before they approved payment of it.
The point is and I agree with you... the bike path is needed and a way was found to provide it within the budget of the project utilizing materials already paid for. This seems like a win/win situation for "ALL" the citizens, and is just another example of the unnecessary scrutiny and micro-management that the City Manager is forced to endure these days.
We are more worried about the
retaliation from Mr. Galletely,
example Duane Brown, Gary Dunham
Jeannie Culley, Gary Metcalf, and
Mark Wall. All fired or requested
to leave with their offices locked
and treated like criminals after
years of service to the community.
Is Terri Ambercrombie next? Mr.
Galletely has the board stacked
just for that purpose.
We have a difference in opinions for sure. I just want to understand the facts. No condemnation. no retaliation. Remember I was the one who was attacked in the bathroom and threatened by a city counseler for expressing my freedom of speech rights in the defense of another Citizen/City worker who was wronged. Mr Galletly is a City Official payed by Tax dollars so he and anyone in his position is always going to fall under scrutiny. As a buisness man I am under constant scrutiny by my customers. If I mess up then I pay the consequences.
Larry Parham as well as the other counsil members are elected officials. They are accountable to the Voters. What Parham did in Tuesdays meeting was ask hardball Questions that all Counsil members should be doing. But, are not! Next morning in the Papers Parham is attacked for looking out for the interests of Grove. This kind of one sided Journalism is beginning
to wear on most people.
How was Mr. Parham attacked? Certainly not in this publication. Maybe I missed something someplace else. Anyway, I applaud Larry for asking the tough questions and am glad he did. But he has to be prepared for the answers he gets.
For many years there were no tough questions asked of our City Manager or councilors and we have paid the price for that. We had a rubber stamp council reluctant to make any waves and as a result we had a city that was moving sideways or backwards, if at all. There was no minority, vocal or otherwise, at least publically. Under the previous city leadership, before Mr. Galletly, where were the beautification projects? Where were the curbs and sidewalks? Where was the fairness in dealing with citizens and business people and especially builders? Where was the up-to-date accounting system in the city? The list could go on and on and on...
A new city manager was hired and those who had been in control realized they could not control the new guy. That cause an immediate conflict that continues to this day. I think we are fortunate that Mr. Galletly has had the courage to stay his course. We might have been through 2 or 3 more managers by now because "they" would not have stopped until the vocal minority finally found someone they could control. And it is all about control.
Yes he (Galletly) cleaned house some, removing some long-time employees, but who's to say those changes were not appropriate? That's an employee-employer relationship and people on the outside rarely know all the facts. I don't, but I trust the City Manager. Look around, the city has not gone to hell in a handbasket. In fact, we're continuing to move in a very positive direction, even with all the distractions.
Although I am a supporter, gererally, of the current manager I do think he has a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. That is my impression. I would have liked a slower hand several times. He's done some stupid things, in my opinion, especially with the PR aspect of his job and the timing of some of his decisions.
BUT I also know the direction the city was headed when he came on board was the wrong one and he made the bold moves to get things back on track. For the most part he's been right so far. His hiring represented a change that has been maintained to this day in our city government. Roles have been reversed. The Reds and blues, if you will, switched places. And that has the new minority in this city all stirred up. They want their good ol' boy systems back in place. They lost political control. I say, it was about time.
I believe the past couple of elections clearly show that a majority of Grove's citizens believe in the direction the city is heading. I don't see it changing either, thank goodness. This NEW majority is mostly silent except when it comes time to vote; when it counts. That has to be maddening to those wanting Galletly, Helms, and Nuckels out.
I hate the turmoil. I hate the court cases and the sniping, but this is what representative democracy looks like. A vocal minority is needed to keep government honest. And since Mr. Galletly was hired we finally have a vocal minority. Unfortunately they still think they are the majority.
Mr. Kyman, I respect your opinion and your right to it, as all citizens who can cast aside their personal agendas and truly are interested in honesty and fairplay and the progress of our community should. I also understand your concerns, although I'm not sure you are getting the full picture... or maybe the whole story, but I understand your concerns and your absolute right to your opinions.
But most of all, I apologize to you and empathize with you for the actions of some un-named person or persons that attacked and threatened you, merely for excercising your rights as a concerned citizen. This type of activity is despicable and unexcusable in my opinion, and is just another example of the level that this whole situation has come to.
I think maybe we should all stop and think about the great strides this City has made in the last few years... take pride in it. There are certainly many more positives than negatives when you look at the "whole" picture. We should all look upon our fellow citizens, businessmen, the City Manager, the City Staff, the City Council as our brothers and sisters and our partners in this thing.
This Grove Observer forum certainly shouldn't be attacked for reporting the news... this forum has been a valuable source and tried to add to the understanding of this situation in an unbiased manner in my opinion. The Grove Observer is not the "problem", it is part of the solution.
Change is sometimes painfull, usually difficult, but almost always necessary...and the changes we have gone through in these last few years were necessary for the progress of Grove and have certainly been difficult for some.... growing pains?
I think that is what it all boils down to. Not that Mr. Galletly has been perfect... I believe he would be the first to admit this; but I beleive he has always acted in what he believed to be in the best interests of the City of Grove. And not that I think Mr. Parham and others attacking the City Maanger agree with my take on the issues, but I reckon (and certainly hope) that they feel they have acted in what they believe to be in the best interest of the City as well.
As Mr. Parham himself said... "We need to make the city whole again, get over this..." I couldn't agree more, I just don't believe constantly attacking the City Manager and Staff and micro-managing and questioning every little management action from personnel decisions to the 18th Street bike path is the way to do it.
Responding to the 6:32 comment I can appreciate some of what you have to say. Maybe I should clarfy that the Observer is much more accurate in its reporting then the Sun has been. In any case it would be nice to see peace and harmony in Grove. Unfortunatly in the current pollitcal arena that will most likely not be possible.
"A well qualified and honest City Manager and many competent City employees have been working hard and doing their best to properly manage growth within the bounds of a limited budget and make Grove a better place to live for ALL citizens."
Wow, I really have to take issue with this statement. For all the claims of mis deeds from the police chief to the emergency management director, The only person from City Governmnet embroiled in this controversy, arrested and convicted has been The City Manager, TWO CRIMNINAL CONVICTIONS. Well qualified? maybe Honest not hardley.
There was no finding of "dishonesty". I believe he has honestly done what he felt needed to be done. Too heavy handed? Probably. Would have loved for this much scrutiny to have been applied to the previous regime. What might we have seen? Can only speculate and I am sure that depends on which side of the fence you are on.
Your point about the CIty Manager being the only one arrested and convicted is accurate. Can't argue that point. Still, IMHO, I would not change what he and others in the city have done.
Well spin it however you want. when you have been arrested and convicted of crimes I dont think you can be called "honest abe".
However I do agree about the former administration. I dont pine for those days either. Call me a Dreamer. I would like to see the city move forward, The controversey to end. The firings of long term empolyee's to stop. Dont think this is possible as long as we have the same city manager. Whether you love him or hate him hs's the focal point. I really dont think it is to far fetched to have Manager who improves the city, without the circus.
Did any of you people ever attend
a city council meeting when the
previous city manager was in office? Was the whole town so
afraid of him that if he had been
doing illegal that no one would
have filed a report or sued the
city? Do you ever read the paper?
He was named City Manager of the
year for the
state of Oklahoma.
At the first audit Mr. Galletely
had the auditors go over the books
for the last 15 years they found
nothing illegal and it cost the
tax payers a small fortune for this
the books had been audited every
year of the previous city managers
term.
Can any one say that Grove had not
grown in the last 15 years? You
may not have liked him but at least
he did nothing illegal and
Grove was not the laughing stalk
of the Whole state!!
As for the airport being run like
a business it has also received
numerous awards over the past
years.
The city is also supposed to be
run as a business not for the
power of some people. Will these
same councilers be happy when
every board is run by three
council members and the people
they want on the board, I doubt
it. People need to be on these
boards that care about Grove and
not with the agenda to get rid
of somebody they dont like or
who hurt their feelings.
The Observer does a good job of
reporting on the meetings which
the Grove Sun never does, it also
allows for comments you have to
pay for the Grove Sun to publish
your letters to the editor if you
don't agree with them.
Ah the joy of posting from a truly Anonymous IP address. Folks I have been waiting to say a long time what a joke this city manager thing has turned out to be. I can honestly say that perhaps some things needed to be changed and that was probably an action that the city council at the time needed to undertake. The problem was the man selected to perform the task.
It was pretty obvious what was coming when Mr. Dunham responded to the question of how was Mr. Galletely during his first visit to city hall and the answer "He wouldn't even shake my hand". People seem to forget that Mr. Dunham had a lot of useful information about existing projects within the city and Mr. Galletely told him on his first day as city manager to get out of my way. How about the waste of city money of keeping somebody employed and sticking them back in a corner because of a personal control quest. Kind of hard to fire somebody without cause on your first day as city manager. But when the empire is built and the support is there, watch out buster, you're toast.
What I'm saying here is that changes might have been necessary but Mr. Galletely was not the man for the job. His actions demonstrate his need for absolute power and the means he will take for achiving said objective. And then when he realizes that the winds have finally changed direction it seems to me he wants to squeeze every last penny out of the citizens of Grove.
I'll be very happy when this man is out of a job, of any kind, withing the city of Grove. He has left scars on this city that will take years to heal and that is sadly, to me more than anything else, the legacy his leadership will leave behind.
What does this have to do with Larry Parham. He has the common sense to know a bad deal when he sees one and was willing to step up to the plate and say so. And that is something I hope the voters remember come election day.
As for the press, The Sun and The Observer have their own spin on the same news, ususally in opposite directions. I will say The Observer has caused The Grove Sun to keep their website up to date for a change and that is something for which I am eternially grateful.
You have an interesting take on history. I recall Mr. Dunham and other city emplopyees canvassing town looking for support to remove the City Manager shortly after he was hired. That's not a good thing to do when you want to keep your job.
Obviously Galletly has a heavy hand, too heavy I'd say. But I think you over state what he has done and the ramifications now and in the future. He is not the one driving a wedge between factions in the city. The wedge was there already we just didn't see it. After Mr. Shero, et. al., got into the act and the city council balance shifted, it was a canyon, not a wedge. It was old guard and new. Simple as that.
History will show us, I guess, whether there was damage done, at least long term damage. i just know the city seems to be running along fine.
The definition of fine is much like the definition of justice, if depends on ones' perspective. The trash can still be picked up, the police still do their job, sewer and water work and so on. The man at the top can have harmony or total control but not both. I've worked for some control freaks before in my life. It wasn't a pleasant experince so when I hear what you say I can undertand why some city employees wanted a change. And it seems for the most part as though the people the city manager likes and gets along with are the ones he hired. I've known more than one business professor in my life that defines a good manager as one who can take whatever kind of people he has when he starts a new job and mold them into the kind of team he needs to do the job. I'm also good friends with more than one city manager and they tell me the right kind of city manager can bridge the gap between the old gaurd and the new. But when I ask who's fault is really is they point it squarely back to the council that hired him because with the amount of bad feelings that exist about this around town, they say the council did not get it right the first time.
As for Mr. Shero, I feel that this too could have been mitigated in large part if Mr. Galletly had told Mr. Shero something to the effect that I need to talk to a lawyer that knows this aspect of law and see what we can give you and what we can't. Maybe he did but from what I understand Mr. Gallety has a presentation problem.
I was once told by a fairly intelligent fellow that the only difference between rape and romance is salesmanship. Think about it, there is a right way and a wrong way to say no. The good city managers can say no to people without turning the town upside down and still be flexible enough to be persuaded when they are wrong and humble enough to admit they might have made a mistake.
What good are all of Galletly's accomplishments if the community is factionalized and various groups are at war with each other rather than enjoying life in Grove? Certainly, Mr. Galletly is intelligent and experienced. But he is hardly infallible and has made some very serious mistakes. But even more important, his style is fatally flawed.
To summarize: He found it necessary to fire virtually all of the key department heads. Some turnover would be expected, but 100%? He has had ongoing problems complying with open meeting and open records laws, to the obvious frustration and irritation of the District Attorney's office. Galletly stands criminally convicted of violating competative bid laws. Galletly has been willing to aggressively attack any group or any individuals within the community with whom he disagreed. Witness his various activities surrounding the Grove Airport, including the dirt fiasco and Galletly's hostility with the airport management and board.
The upcoming elections may be an opportunity to put this war behind. All Grove needs is a city council strong enough to clean house, hire a new city manager who is not only smart but ALSO a diplomat, and then enforce a peace. For the good of the city.
Obviously we will not agree on many points. I disagree with a couple of yours. FIrst no all department heads were cut loose. And, as I said in an earlier post, at least one was out talking to local people trying to get Galletly fired after only a few weeks. Not smart. Further, what has happened to the city since those firings? It has moved on and made progress. perhaps those firings were justified and necessary?
2nd..the dirt controversy. That was entirely appropriate. City dirt, garbage, etc..has value and can not be given away without a bid process. Period.
I agree that he has made huge mistakes regarding open meetings and the way he has handled some personnel issues. I don't agree that a new city council with an agenda to get rid of the CM will solve any problems. Move on. Do the best you can with what you've got. If he's got to go, then so be it. BUT THEN WHAT? Someone's cronie? Hope not but we've kind of been there, haven't we?
It seems to me that some oversight might be in order for our county government. The Daily Oklahoman reported recently that 85% of the County Commissioners in OK are accepting (kickbacks) gifts from county suppliers. If I'm not mistaken, all of our real estate taxes is funneled through the county. That is an incredible amount of money. Hopefully it is being audited carefully and the
Delaware County Commissioners are being watched.
I BEG TO DIFFER, DUANE BROWN WAS
A DEPARTMENT HEAD, GARY METCALF,
AND MARK WALL WERE ALSO DEPARTMENT
HEADS. JEANNIE CULLEY HAD BEEN
WITH GMSA FOR AT LEAST FIFTEEN
YEARS AND DID THE BILLING AND
HANDLED PART OF THE NATURAL GAS
PROCESS. MR GALLETLY GOT RID OF
EVERY BODY WHO KNEW MORE THAN HE
DID IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS SO NO ONE
COULD QUESTION HOW HE DID THINGS.
REMEMBER HE WORKS FOR THE CITY
COUNCIL, MR. NOLD RESIGNED
BECAUSE MR. GALLETELY REFUSED TO
PUT CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
EXAMPLE RESURFACING AND REPAIRING
HARBER ROAD, THE ROAD TO ONE OF
THE LARGEST TOURIST ATTRACTIONS IN
GROVE. A COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD
BE ALLOWED TO PUT ANYTHING ON
THE AGENDA, IF THE OTHERS DONT
WANT TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ANY ACTION
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
Post a Comment
<< Home