90-day 'acting' appointments. It's the law.

As the Plaintalker pointed out today (see here), City Administrator Marc Dashield's service as acting Director of Administration and Finance is now well past the time limit (February 24, by my count) allowed by the Municipal Code.

Herewith the citation from the Municipal Code --

Sec. 2:3-4. Interim appointments.

(a) Whenever a vacancy exists in any office required by the Charter or ordinance to be filled by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council, the Mayor may temporarily fill such vacancy in the absence of any contrary provision in the Charter or ordinance by appointing an acting officer, including the designation of himself (sic) or a Department Director as Acting City Administrator or the designation of the City Administrator as an acting department director. Any such appointment shall terminate no later than ninety (90) days after the date of appointment. No person shall be eligible for a temporary appointment who has previously served a temporary appointment in the same office during the previous twelve (12) consecutive months.

(b) Such appointee shall have all of the functions, powers and duties of the office for ninety (90) days.

There is a further provision [Sec. 2:5-9 (e)] that the City Administrator shall be entitled to no additional compensation while so serving as acting department director.

Now, some questions come to mind.

Are actions taken by City Administrator Dashield acting as Director of Administration and Finance after the 90 days had passed null and void?

Will the Green/Robinson-Briggs administration ask the Council to rescind the ordinance mandating the 90-day limit?

If so, on what basis?

And will the Council be willing to make the change?

We won't ask if the Administration was even aware of the time limit.

But isn't it fair to ask whether or not the law can just be ignored?

---

--Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.