Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward told WEAR TV that he would not act on the council resolution passed at its Feb. 11 meeting that gave its members access to all floors of City Hall. Instead, the mayor’s office has established a new procedure that requires council members to make an appointment through City Administrator Eric Olson in order to visit city staff.
This morning, Inweekly spoke with Council President Charles Bare who said his security fob still does not allow him to travel to the sixth floor where the city’s finance offices are located. Council members have also been taken off the city’s shared K Drive.
Councilman Bare has asked City Attorney Lysia Bowling for a legal opinion on whether the mayor can ignore council resolutions.
On WEAR TV, Mayor Hayward cited his reason for limiting access security issues and his wanting to keep council members separate from city staff so all can focus on their day-to-day work.
The 2010 City Charter does prohibit the council from interfering with the city administration:
Section 4.04. Prohibitions.
(b) Interference with Administration. Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith, the City Council or Council Members shall deal with the City officers and employees, who are subject to the direction and supervision of the Mayor, solely through the Mayor. Neither the City Council nor Council Members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. It is the express intent of this Charter that recommendations for improvement of municipal governmental operations by individual Council Members be made solely to and through the Mayor.
Maybe the mayor’s office is saying access to the floors at city hall is interference. However, denying access to the city’s K drive appears to be extreme, especially since the data on that drive is a public record.
Whatever the administration’s logic, the council resolution dispute needs to be resolved. The mayor has the power to veto any council resolution, but failed to do so in time period prescribed by the charter. In absence of a veto, it would appear the resolution is binding.