Mueller: Sued aldermen seek city funding to hire defense Mueller: Sued aldermen seek city funding to hire defense attorney
</element><element id="paragraph-1" type="body"><![CDATA[Red Bud Mayor Ken Mueller said Monday that five aldermen are asking the city for a new appropriation of $30,000 for litigation. Presumably, they want to hire another attorney to represent them in a lawsuit naming them as defendants.
The city's insurance carrier has provided an attorney to represent the aldermen, but they apparently want another lawyer to defend them in the pending court case.
The matter is expected to be on the City Council's agenda Monday.
The aldermen are being sued by Chief of Police James Creighton. Back on July 7, the council voted to discontinue authorization of Creighton's pay and benefits, which they had the authority to do, although they couldn't fire him. Only Mueller could do that, and he refused to do so.
The position of police chief has become a contentious matter in Red Bud, as Mueller, upon taking office, chose not to retain former Chief Dan Brotz. Six of the eight aldermen wanted to retain Brotz and subsequently created a new position of assistant chief of police at a salary identical to that allocated for the chief. They then unilaterally appointed and approved Brotz to fill the new position.
State statutes and city codes allow a mayor to fill vacancies with temporary appointments when the council refuses to confirm appointments. There is no stipulation as to the length of temporary appointments. Presumably they can remain in office at the pleasure of the mayor who appoints them.
After the council refused to confirm Mueller's appointment of Don McKinney, Mueller named McKinney police chief on a temporary basis. He resigned after just four days citing a lack of support from Brotz and the aldermen.
Then Mueller tried to appoint Creighton, who was likewise denied confirmation by the council. After Creighton was named as a temporary appointee, the council passed an ordinance to limit the term of temporary appointments to two terms of 60 days within a fiscal year. Claiming the ordinance would make it impossible to fill vacancies, Mueller vetoed it.
The council then overrode Mueller's veto. Contending that the ordinance was unlawful, Mueller disregarded it. Then five members of the council, which controls spending, voted to suspend Creighton's pay after he had served his 60 day term.
Ironically, on May 5, the council passed an ordinance appropriating funding for the city's budget for the fiscal year after amending it to remove funds for tort immunity.
Mueller elected not to veto the ordinance so that funding for the city would not be held up. Instead he refused to sign the ordinance into law, although it automatically became law without his signature.
What disturbed Mueller was the amendment proposed by Alderman Don Glasscock to remove the tort immunity funds. Mueller noted among a number of complaints over the amended ordinance that it "impedes the city's ability to engage in or respond to litigation which might be necessary to safeguard the best interests of the city."