Dateline: December 18, 2003

Aldermen reconfirm Pate as administrator

By Roger Estlack, Clarendon Enterprise

Clarendon officials reconfirmed the employment of City Administrator Sean Pate last week following a six-month evaluation of his performance.

Pate was hired by the Board of Aldermen in June and became the city’s first administrator in 38 years. The work he has done since then received mixed reviews last week, but most aldermen said Pate has been doing a good job.

The performance evaluation normally would have been conducted in a closed session of the board. Pate, however, requested it be done in open session.

“I’m a public employee, and the public has a right to know,” he said.

Mayor Tex Selvidge started the evaluation and reminded the board of some of the goals they had set for the administrator, specifically ordinance enforcement.

“I looked at the evaluation. I didn’t rate him ‘excellent,’ but I didn’t rate him ‘unsatisfactory’ either,” Selvidge said. “I think he’s doing a ‘satisfactory’ job and will get better.”

Alderman Mark White agreed.

“There have been a lot of positive things accomplished,” he said. “He’s handled the job better than some would have. I’m happy with his performance.”

Alderman Tommy Hill said Pate needed to improve on some areas.

“He’s done good on the ordinances, but there have been some short falls,” he said. “His relations with the employees is not the best. He is the boss, and he needs to take control.”

Pate’s harshest criticism came from Alderman Michael Tibbets, who was the sole board member to have voted against filling the administrator’s position earlier this year.

“I have some real problems,” Tibbets said. “Going back to the newspaper articles, that was insubordination.”

Tibbets was referring to a November 6 article in The Clarendon Enterprise about action taken at the October 28 board meeting. The story quoted Pate as saying, “What they did [last week] was spot zoning, and that is illegal in the State of Texas.”

That meeting had only three voting aldermen present, and Tibbets and Hill had voted to allow a local resident to build an assisted living center in a residential zone. The action was later determined to be improper and was reversed at a subsequent meeting on the advice of the city attorney.

Tibbets said last week he felt Pate had accused him and Hill of being criminals.

“I was offended, and Tommy ought to be offended,” Tibbets said.

Pate said he did not consider the remark to be insubordination, and other board members said they had not taken the quote the same way Tibbets had.

Tibbets asked Pate if the quote in the paper was accurate.

“I am not going to deny anything I’ve said in that paper,” Pate said.

“The paper can say whatever it wants because its owned by a member of the press,” Tibbets responded, “but you should avoid the appearance of stating legal and policy positions for the city in the paper.”

Pate said he would apologize if he had offended Tibbets in any way but also said Alderman Tibbets had made no effort to work with him or get to know him.

“You’ve made it no secret that you didn’t like me from day one,” Pate said. “Every other person on this board has come to talk to me, but you have never once been in my office.”

Pate went on to say that Tibbets does not listen to what he says and does not pay attention at meetings when administrative reports are made.

Tibbets responded that he was too busy to come to Pate’s office and said he had not criticized Pate until the administrator’s comments came out in the Enterprise.

Other board members disagreed with that assertion.

Tibbets said he wanted a written apology from Pate to be placed in the administrator’s personnel file. Pate said he might agree to that if Tibbets would pledge to work with him and get to know him.

“I think if you would get to know me, we might find that we could have a conversation and even find that we have some things in common,” Pate said.

But Alderman White urged caution on the administrator’s part, saying, “I don’t know, Sean. I think I’d want to try this new working relationship before I wrote an apology. We know how it’s been.”

Alderman Hill then moved to table the evaluation. There was no second.

Alderman Janice Knorpp said she thought Pate was doing a good job but that the board had tied his hands.

Alderman Bobbie Kidd agreed with Knorpp and said he thought Pate has some doubt as to what authority he has. He said Pate needs more authority over the employees and also criticized the $500 spending limit the administrator must work with.

“He has to wait until a board meeting to spend $502. That’s ridiculous.”

The board voted 4-1 to continue Pate’s employment. Alderman Tibbets opposed.

The board then considered Pate’s salary, which was set at $30,000 per year initially. The budget allows for $35,000.

Hill moved to give Pate an additional $2,500 per year at this time and another $2,500 per year in six month if his performance improves. There was no second.

The board then approved a motion by Kidd to set the annual salary at $35,000 by a 3-2 vote. Tibbets and Hill opposed.

In other city business, Pate presented a resolution to the board authorizing the submission of an application for a solid waste grant from the state.

If successful, the city would receive $8,000 for an 18’x26’ storage building at the recycling center. Since the amount requested is less than $10,000, it would be a 100 percent grant, requiring no matching funds from the city. The board approved the resolution, 4-0-1, with Tibbets abstaining.

Clarendon EDC Executive Director Bob Watson presented a resolution supporting the “Texas Yes!” program administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture.

“Texas Yes!” is designed to encourage development in rural Texas, and the CEDC is currently working on grant opportunities through the program. The board approved the resolution.

The city’s contract with the Donley Appraisal District was reviewed, and the composition of the district’s governing board was discussed. The board noted that the city cannot collect its own taxes for less than what it pays the district to do the work but also expressed continued displeasure with how appraisal board members are chosen.

“We are in this entity with no representation on the board, and I will vote ‘no,’” Tibbets said. “It’s taxation without representation.”

The board approved the contract, 4-1.