Op-Ed Columns

Many heard the harmony of voices blending together; others saw the integration of colors as in a beautiful work of art, and some felt the binding strength of unity, but everyone recognized what can be accomplished when citizens work together with common purpose, ready and willing to hold government accountable for its actions.

Recently, Anniston's mayor and councilmen peered over their lofty bench and looked into the eyes of a crowd of determined residents who were fed up with the recent antics of the City Council. Black and white, men and women, young and old let it be known that they had respect for, confidence in, and a strong desire for George Monk to continue as City Manager.

Councilman Stan Bennett's recent letter to The Star characterized Monk as "a fine attorney and a gentleman." Is it just me, or is it impossible to understand how in one sentence Bennett can claim a man to have five serious failings, including the "failure to appropriately follow City Council directives," and in another sentence refer to him as a fine attorney and possibly the best candidate for city manager?

During the council meeting, Bennett's continued opposition to Monk was also reflected by Councilman Ben Little, as both maintained their "no" vote for an extension to Monk's contract. Bennett did, however, compromise on the issue of additional vacation time, but only after Monk had undergone a joint performance review by the City Council. Bennett claims "a review of Mr. Monk's job performance is not only good business, it's the law."

It is hard to believe that Bennett could make such a statement considering that members of the City Council have not been able to complete a performance review for Monk in four years.

It is obvious that Bennett's newfound attitude of compromise was brought to bear by the pressure exerted by the overwhelming support for Monk by the citizenry of Anniston.

Of course, Little, not being influenced by the will of the people, announced that scheduling conflicts might prevent him from attending a review session. A member of the audience offered to give Ben a ride to the review location. For 30 seconds a council meeting, which had gone on for more than four hours, produced a little humor.

I believe that our city fathers, when instituting our current form of government, did so because it emulates the effectiveness and efficiency of the private sector. In this form of government, the city manager becomes the chief executive, the council represents the board of directors, and the citizens assume the role of voting stockholders. Every four years we have a stockholder meeting in Anniston called an election. We can either confirm our faith in the individuals who represent us on our board, or we can replace them.

I strongly believe that our Board of Directors (or City Council) has perverted its role with our city manager. Instead of micromanagement, the council should communicate policy to the city manager, hold him accountable for implementation, and then allow the city manager to perform his job. There should be regular, organized performance appraisals based on published policies, procedures and standards. It appears that the disease of micromanagement, all too often practiced by some of our councilmen, can only be diagnosed and treated by the voting public.

I believe that Monk should be appointed as city manager for an indefinite period. That appointment should include an employment agreement (often referred to as a contract) and performance objectives based on written policies, procedures and standards. Monk should receive periodic performance reviews based on realistic performance objectives instead of the personal whims from individual council members. Each job appraisal should include incentives for superior performance and remedial action or dismissal should performance ever fall into the under-objective category.

I am trusting that the people will conduct their own performance reviews on Aug. 26.

John Spain is a resident of Anniston and a candidate for City Council.