By KLAS STOLPE
Sentinel Staff Writer
At the start of Tuesday night’s Assembly meeting for the annual evaluation of the city administrator and city attorney, Mayor Gary Paxton asked if there were objections to following last year’s procedure, when the Assembly deliberated on each of the officials, and then voted “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.”
He asked if any Assembly members had comments about the process.
Assembly member Kevin Mosher responded, by making a motion to fire Keith Brady as city administrator.
“Whereas the State of Alaska is an at-will state,” he said. “And whereas the contract between the city of Sitka and administrator Keith Brady clearly states that his appointment is at-will, I move to terminate Keith Brady’s employment with the City of Sitka effective May 1, 2019.”
“Second,” Assembly member Valorie Nelson said.
A stunned Mayor Paxton looked across at Mosher.
“You’re sh***ing me,” he said.
Mosher replied, “I am not.”
Six of the seven Assembly members, Paxton, Mosher, Nelson, Richard Wein, Aaron Bean and Kevin Knox were present. Steven Eisenbeisz was absent.
Three members of the city staff in the sparse audience – finance director Jay Sweeney, fire chief Dave Miller and city attorney Brian Hanson – immediately came forward to defend Brady, who observed the exchanges from his usual seat at one end of the Assembly table.
Neither Mosher nor Nelson stated their reason for wanting Brady fired. Brady has been city administrator since September 2017.
Paxton, a retired career U.S. Army officer, spoke of his experience as a personnel evaluator in the military.
“You fire people for incompetence, immorality, or cause,” he said. “This (motion) is an outrageous proposal.”
The Assembly voted to go into executive session with Brady, and returned after about an hour to talk about how to proceed.
Mosher withdrew his previous motion and offered a substitute motion to start removal proceedings in accordance with the city charter. Charter Article 4.02 requires a majority of the Assembly to adopt a preliminary resolution stating the reasons for removal of an administrator, and allows the Assembly to suspend an administrator for up to 30 days. It also allows the administrator to call for a public hearing.
Richard Wein seconded the substitute motion, and again a number of city staff members came forward to voice support for Brady.
Public Works Director Mike Harmon said there was a lot of “positive momentum” at the city, and that the city is in a hard spot, but noted positive change only comes with teamwork.
“Keith brings that teamwork to the table,” he told the Assembly.
Paxton said he wanted to be on record as thanking Brady for his solid work.
“I hope this will fail,” he said of the motion on the table. “And I am confident the administrator has heard the passion of the Assembly for what they want and he will do his best.”
Mosher’s motion failed on a 3-3 vote, with Mosher, Nelson and Wein in favor, and Paxton, Kevin Knox and Aaron Bean against.
Bean then made a motion to give Brady an “unsatisfactory” review and to re-evaluate his status in 60 days.
Knox said he did not agree, and said that any re-evaluation should come after at least 90 days.
“In my view if this body were looking for very specific things we need to bring those things to Keith,” he said. He spoke of an enormous workload on the administrator’s desk.
Bean agreed to amend his motion to provide 90 days before the review. It was seconded and passed on a 4-2 vote, with Paxton and Knox voting no.
The Assembly then went into executive session for the annual evaluation of city attorney Brian Hanson. His tenure with the city began in September of 2016.
Returning to open session they voted unanimously to rate his performance as satisfactory.
Knox said it was above satisfactory.
“The job you have done is above satisfactory and I thank you for the work you have done,” he told Hanson.
No one came forward to speak in the customary “Persons to Be Heard” portion of the agenda, and the meeting was adjourned with no public disclosure on the reason for displeasure some members of the Assembly have with Brady’s performance as administrator.
“It was a shock,” Brady said today when the Sentinel asked about his reaction to Tuesday night.
Recalling Paxton’s rebuke to Mosher on his first motion at the Assembly meeting, Brady said he values his personal integrity.
“I always want to make sure I do things correctly and according to code,” he said.
Brady was asked about the 90-day re-evaluation.
“To do an about-face with no corrective measures, that is one thing I’m going to be revisiting the Assembly with, what can I do to bring my ‘Unsatisfactory’ into ‘Satisfactory.’” he said. “I didn’t hear anything in public of what they want me to do better on. All I heard from Kevin Mosher was he doesn’t feel I have the experience to do the job: there is nothing I can do about that. I can only move forward and do my job to the best of my ability and gain experience as I get it.”
He said he will be asking the Assembly members what they want him to improve on, saying no direction was given in executive session.
“In executive session there are two reasons that we went in there,” he said. “One was to talk about questions about personnel, things that could adversely affect the finances of the city… they had questions about decisions I had made and so we discussed them and I had explanations for them. Whether they were satisfied with those I don’t know.”
Brady had asked for his evaluation to be conducted in public, as he did last year.
“The reasons I want it in public are pretty simple,” he said. “I can take a lot of criticism and I am willing to let everyone hear what I need to do to be better. I am OK with that. I know what public service means, I know it is a tough job... but last night was a little disheartening.
“I like my job, I like the direction we are going with economic development, opening up lands on No-Name and Granite Creek area and pursuing that with a master plan,” he said. “There are some positive things we can get done, but there are also some hard discussions I think the Assembly and community need to have with the Governor’s budget, with things as they are, what do we need to do and what level of services do we want and how do we pay for it.”
Nelson said today she had mixed feelings on Brady’s performance – “I think there is room for improvement” – and wanted the evaluation in executive session, even though Brady has asked for it to be in public, as it was last year.
“There were a lot of tense moments,” Nelson said. “I had no idea Mosher would make that motion. I seconded it because I wanted it to be in executive session. I guess I could have not seconded it but I was kind of shocked.”
When asked what improvements were needed, she said the Assembly gave Brady ideas.
“For me it is all about keeping the Assembly informed and not coming up with things at the last moment,” she said. “We have had a lot of difficult meetings of late, when we are trying to rewrite a resolution during an Assembly meeting to make things work that is kind of frustrating. It’s more about controlling staff. I think there is a way to improve and I think we will know in 90 days if he improves. I don’t have a check list, I didn’t provide him with a checklist. There were a lot of tense moments in executive session and we aren’t supposed to divulge what the conversation is… it was very uncomfortable for me.”
She also had problems with the actions of some officials at the Monday meeting on the hospital sale, saying she did not like it when she saw a side conference of Brady with Hanson, Sweeney and Bean, and tha’is why she left the meeting early.
“That is not normal,” she said. “It is not normal for staff and Assembly members to be huddling to work out last minute deals. It is irresponsible. I still think there were conflicts of interest but I didn’t want to stick around and cry or cuss.”
In his comments about the events of Tuesday night, Paxton said, “I was surprised and found it difficult.”
“My view was there should have been some previous action to warrant the motion to relieve the administrator. The challenge is not about him personally, it is about leadership qualities and following the direction of the Assembly which is, by the way, always a challenge. I think the Assembly has members that feel he has to be more responsive to implement the challenges we face… Leadership is not easy.”
Paxton, who has also served as Sitka city administrator, said he met with Brady today.
“I tried to give him my assessment on how he needs to proceed with vigor to be sure the Assembly knows that he’s going to do his very best for what they have intended him to do,” he said.
Calls to Bean, Mosher, and Eisenbeisz were not returned by press time.
City attorney Brian Hanson talks with city administrator Keith Brady during Tuesday’s Assembly meeting. The Assembly had gone into executive session to discuss Assembly member Kevin Mosher’s motion, seconded by Valarie Nelson, to terminate Brady’s contract with the city. The contentious motion split the Assembly 3-3 with one member absent.
Sitka mayor Gary Paxton and Assembly member Kevin Mosher speak at the end of a contentious exchange during Tuesday’s evaluation of city administrator Keith Brady and city attorney Brian Hanson.
