“Jubilee” in the last Lagniappe got unexpected (and rare) kudos for describing and praising the Fairhope City Council’s strategy for separation of the mayor from Public Works. Even got a few favorable comments on my observation that you tend to get what you’re willing to pay for: pay a decent mayoral salary and you should attract a decent mayor.
But my suggestion that the dual-hatted, double-dipping Tim Kant, faced with competent competition, might just quietly drop out of the race and stick with the higher-paying public works job was met with scoffing and derision. And within a week those who scoffed and derided were proved right and I, dead wrong.
With nary a word to anyone on the council about his concerns over “excessive” pay increases (apparently overlooking the pay of the newly-appointed head of Fairhope’s electric service), Mayor Tim vetoed the pay increase package. But there was an even more important, but covert, intent in his action. He didn’t just veto the raises, he tried to prevent them from happening for four years—regardless of any override vote by the council.
As a fairly new comer I had never seen beyond Tim Kant’s public role as Fairhope’s amiable front man. What I had missed was that when faced with the very real possibility of being voted out of office, he could draw on well hidden skills of political craftiness and guile. Cornered by the council, he fought back and seemingly staved off the possibility of being ousted in the elections this August. Note “seemingly,” because as this little drama played out it appears that he was not quite skillful enough to pull off this career-protection move.
Here’s what happened after the council’s vote on the substantial pay raise - up roughly 200 percent to $50,000 a year for full-time work - authorized for the mayor’s position. Not generous, but at that level they have established a living wage for future mayors—not dependent on simultaneously serving as head of public works (as is the current custom) to survive financially.
After not being allowed to comment on the council’s action at the meeting, Mayor Tim was officially silent on the subject. But he was busy hatching a plot to subvert the intent of the council. The better part of a week passed and the city council’s approval of pay raises was published in the local paper as required by law—even though it was still within the window of opportunity for a mayoral veto. According to the paper of record, the announcement was signed by both the city clerk and Mayor Kant. Apparently the city clerk routinely requests publication right after the meetings and since there had never been a veto, this procedure was usually fine.
And it appeared to be fine until the next council meeting. There a sealed envelope was waiting for them. The clerk opened it and read the letter inside, which announced the mayor’s veto of the pay raises. It had been logged in four days earlier—at 4:02 p.m. on Feb. 21, the last day a veto would be legal. Moving fast, the council voted to override the veto and did so by the required three-quarters majority (Mike Ford opposed). But it wasn’t a done deal yet.
As reported by Mike Odom in the Fairhope Courier, Mayor Kant stated the vote would have no effect because the required publication of public notice could not made before the state mandated closing date for pay raises. Further, the veto override should not have been considered by the council because it wasn’t on the official agenda. Unexpectedly clever on the mayor’s part, but it turns out he wasn’t nearly as clever as he thought himself to be. Legal opinion is that things were handled correctly - override stands, pay raises pass. There may be a need for a judicial review, but the consensus is that what we see now will stick - Kant loses to The Council in a decision.
If decided the other way, there would be four more years with the mayor’s job being just an extra duty for someone employed elsewhere—like as the head of public works. Our local Siamese-twin public servant, Tim Kant would be happy to keep the mayoral wage at its current pittance. Meager pay sure will hold down interest in the job during the upcoming elections.
Doesn’t take a high IQ to know that when you’re running for public office, eliminating opponents before they even get on the ballot can really help and Mayor Tim caught on real quick. Under the guise of being fiscally responsible, he’s really just trying to hang on to his part-time job as mayor. Worse, he tried to do it by stealth and deception. His whole performance is just plain old sleazy politics—perfectly legal, but perfectly reprehensible.
Now if this happened in Washington, DC or Montgomery, no one would even notice. But most of us look at these ethical cesspools as examples of we why we rank politicians somewhere between used car salesman and pornography peddlers. This isn’t what we expect of our elected officials here in LA. - not even in Orange Beach - and certainly not what Fairhopeans should be looking for in their city’s leaders.
But there may be some good in all this because Mayor Tim’s inept power play may work for the civic good. It should turn a few more residents against him—assuming that any are left to turn, what with the Wal-Mart fiasco, institutionalized indifference to local businesses and repeated budget “surprises” all happening on his watch. When coupled with the establishment of a full-time, stand-alone mayor’s position, the people of Fairhope may get to select their next leader from a field of well-qualified, community-minded candidates.
That will be real Change.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
