Included in that debate is if it's "fair" that recall "takes away" the vote of those people who voted for Stone.
If this was the corporate world, a successful election would be like a job interviewed. You're hired.
For some reason, however, some folks who get elected think they have an edict to do whatever they want for the length of the term and nothing can happen to them.
Elected officials seem to have that luxury. Just because they are chosen, doesn't mean they are the chosen. That would be like an NFL, NHL or NBA coach getting a contract and not having to worry about performance. Education has its tenure, which in many ways is a flawed system.
So if you take a corporate position, recall is a performance review -- not a contract renewal. Eager beaver legal experts will be quick to remind you that Illinois is an "at-will" state and people can lose their jobs "at the will" of their employers.
The people of Buffalo Grove employ the Board. If there is a serious breach in that performance, one which hinders village operation, there should be a recourse available. In this case it's recall. With the flurry of editorials, letters and comments by readers of various publications, it's no secret that Stone voted in favor of the recall ordinance.
Her defense, as posted on AOL's Patch is that she is up for recall because, she claims to be an "independent" and not part of the "old boys club." We've been down that road before.
The questions that need answering should include: How well has she done her job? What has she contributed to the Board at its meetings besides the usual rant about how poorly the village government is run? Look at the minutes -- yes the minutes that Stone vehemently objects to -- and check the votes of the Board on matters relating to the operation of the village. My guess is that she voted with the rest of the Board nearly 95 percent of the time.
Her most glaring no votes center around the minutes. That's because, as noted here before, that she wants a narrative flaunting her comments. Village Clerk Jan Sirabian is not a reporter -- she's a village clerks who records the actions of the Board -- not a narrative of every comment. Taxpayer dollars should not be used for campaign literature.
Stone says good government needs dissent, discussion and debate. I'm not sure dissent is the proper word, disagreement may be a better word because through proper debate, disagreements can often be resolved. She left out one "dis" word --- disrespect.
Her flagrant disrespect for her colleagues on the board, village staff and the rules approved by the Board is one of the keys that people single out when discussing the recall issue. In the corporate world it would be called insubordination.
When that method of operation becomes the prevailing one, any attempt at productive government is gone.
Her obsession with her own issues has become not only an annoyance, but also a hindrance to the operation of the village. In the corporate world, they would call this lack of productivity.
These are not the traits a productive employee should demonstrate. In the corporate world, managers would work with an employee to improve their performance. Stone's colleagues on the Board have tried that. Granted, it has been a difficult effort. Stone does not accept counterpoints to her views very well, or so it seems through her actions at the Board meetings.
Needless to say, the results have not been pretty. Nothing is perfect. Corporations, schools, nonprofit organizations -- or government. Any one person who thinks he or she holds the key to an organization's success through an insubordinate and flawed performance is not working for the good of that organization -- in this case, the village.
There's a difference between independence and arrogance and belligerence.
And when the latter two overshadow the good and welfare of the company, or in this case the community, the "personnel managers" -- in this case the voters -- need to take action.
The performance review is Tuesday.
And what is it that Donald Trump says?
No comments:
Post a Comment