Margaret McAvoy Contract Invalid?
January 5th, 2007 | by christine |It’s possible that Margaret’s August 24 contract, which is backdated to March 22, will expire on March 22 2007. The contract is written to be valid through March 22, 2009. This appears to be in violation of state law.
The applicable state law is as follows:
The term of the employment contract may extend beyond the terms of the members of the county board of commissioners. The term of the employment contract shall be 3 years or less, unless the employment contract is entered into on or after August 1 of an even-numbered year, in which case the term of the employment contract shall be 1 year or less.
The date of the contract is August 24, 2006. The above clause would seem to apply. Since the contract was back-dated to March 22, 2006, the one year term would end March 22, 2007.
In defense of this contract, the current board may claim that it was their intent to enter into a 3 year agreement, and that they had attempted to do so in July. They did, in fact, agree to the terms in July. However, the state law reads that the parties have to enter into the contract … not agree to it, or intend to enter into it.
Now … remember all that stuff about the drain office and soil erosion fees? Remember all the talk about how it doesn’t matter what Gary Holzhausen and Bernie Butcher meant to do? It doesn’t matter what anyone’s intent is … all that matters is the letter of the law, right? Isn’t that why that missing piece of paper is so important? Isn’t that why Bernie was charged with a crime?
Are they now going to say that the letter of the law is not important? Are they going to say that all that matters is the intent?
Will there be one standard for the drain office, and another, conflicting standard for the county administrator’s office?
Hmm.
Now some of you may be asking, why wasn’t the contract negotiated in March of 2006, when the original contract expired? I bet the county union employees could answer that … they were in negotiations with the county at the time. That was when Margaret is reported to have said “how dare you ask for a raise when you know the county doesn’t have any money?” A few months later, the contract was done. Then the county turned their attention to Margaret’s contract. Suddenly, the county had money to give someone a raise … good thing the union employees were locked in to a contract by then.
The board defended Margaret’s raise by claiming it is a “reclassification” … the position had changed from “coordinator” to “administrator”. Normally during a reclassification, there is a ‘reclassification board’ that reviews the recommendation. This is the body that determines whether the new position is necessary and legal. There was no reclassification board review for this contract … the county waited so long to write Margaret’s contract that they had to completely circumvent this process.
It’s possible that the current lame duck board will call an emergency meeting before the end of the year, in order to re-write the contract. Even if they did that, it could only be extended to December of 2007, according to the state law referenced earlier.
The current board should let it go, and the contract should expire in March 2007. At that time, the classification should be reviewed and the position posted. Applicants should be able to compete for the position. If Margaret is selected from this process then we’ll know she is the best qualified person for the job. If the position remains as ‘administrator’ and is not re-classified as ‘coordinator’, then we’ll have more confidence that the county needs an administrator. This is the best way to protect the interests of the county.
Update: You can view Act 156, Paragraph O here, and download the 8 page employment contract in .doc format or in .pdf format.
update #2: The links to the contract weren’t working … sorry about that … they’re fixed now. –10:20am, Wed, 12-27
update #3: The minutes from the July 27, 2006 commissioner meeting in which they agreed to the “presented” contract are now available for download in .doc and .pdf formats. The relevant section is highlighted on page 2.
update #4: Originally published December 23, 2006; Moved to the top of blog due to Argus Press article January 5, 2006
7 Responses to “Margaret McAvoy Contract Invalid?”
By Tina J on Dec 23, 2006 | Reply
Good work Christine. If the current Board of Commissioners whose terms expire 12/31/06, vote to extend the contract, then I think that the gloves should be off for those Commissioners who remain on the Board after this date. There are 4. And, if an ‘emergency’ meeting is held, doesn’t that show the true colors of everyone involved? I applaud looking after our interests and thank those who found this discrepancy and have brought it to light.
Tina
By Kay Lauro on Dec 24, 2006 | Reply
There was only Roszman (R) and Pavlica (D) who voted against MM’s contract. Roszman leaves office 12/31/06 and will be replaced by (currently) Democrat Sparkes.
Even if they call an emergency meeting they could only extend the contract for one year from the date. I would assume the same people would vote the same way, but maybe not. That would be a really, really dirty trick.
Seems like it is about time our commissioners started finding ways to operate within the law, instead of looking for ways to operate around the law.
By Kay Lauro on Dec 26, 2006 | Reply
Also……….the job “reclassification” that led to more money for MM supposedly had nothing to do with the title.
“Coordinator” or “Administrator” are supposedly the same thing. So sayeth attorney Toski during these contract negotiations.
The “reclassification” was based on job responsibilities. All that power MM had to grab. Demanded, as in, she had to have to effectively do her job. Then, as soon as she gets, she gets her job “reclassified” and a ‘raise’ that isn’t really a raise. It was an increase based on ‘reclassification’.
If anything, all that power should come back to the Board of Commissioners and they can do their own job, instead of letting a ‘coordinator4/administrator’ do it for them. As it is, we really don’t need 7 commissioners and an administrator.
It has been too easy for lazy commissioners to pass their job responsibilities on to the coordinator/adminstrator.
By christine on Dec 26, 2006 | Reply
It’s probably appropriate for the part-time commissioners to have a coordinator to assist, but it should be an administrative support position, not a supervisory position over other county offices, or a political steering position with influence over the board.
I don’t know if Shiawassee needs a full time coordinator … we probably do … but we don’t need it in this form.
Yes they did say that coordinator = administrator, but they said so many other things along with that, and none of it made sense unless you took each statement out of context and let it stand on its own.
By Randy Conat, ABC12 News on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply
I’d like to talk to you about Margaret McAvoy.
Call me at 810-257-2804.
By Kay Lauro on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply
Christine “, but it should be an administrative support position, not a supervisory position over other county offices, or a political steering position with influence over the board.”
Boy you sure said a mouthful there!
The minutes of the July 27 meeting state the contract is approved “as presented”.
The contract, itself, is dated and typed “August”. There is no way that contract was “presented” with a typed date of August on it. What else changed from the original “as presented” July version?
There are a couple things I don’t recall seeing in it,in July. Be careful - I could be wrong. I think I have a copy of that, somewhere. Haven’t had time to thoroughly search for it, but the county should be able to produce that document and I did FOIA for it, as well.
By Kay Lauro on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply
Christine “or a political steering position with influence over the board.”
Excuse me for repeating myself, but would that be something like the meeting described to me by the outlaw Jon Wilson (sheriff) that I detailed on my blog at http://shiacac.blogspot.com/2006/06/7conversation-with-sheriff-jon-wilson.html ???
Seems to fit the description perfectly.
They even did that the same day as they approved MM’s contract “as presented”.
That would be July 27, 2006 and it is in the minutes immediately following the motion to approve MM’s contract.
The outlaws were busy that day.