I thought this was fitting to add to “Clarkston Secrets.” Mayor Haven has clearly signaled that, yes, he is in fact in favor of secret, backroom decision-making in his new role mayor – and it only took two meetings to get there. Read on, lest you be fooled by our new mayor’s soft-spoken voice and demeanor, because he is anything but transparent.
You may remember that there was a lot of whining from the council members last year when former Mayor Percival appointed someone to the Historic District Commission (HDC), as he was clearly entitled to do at the time. “But-but-but we should have a say in that!,” cried the council members. So things were changed to give all council members a say, and I have no quarrel with that.
Fast forward to last Monday (11/26/18) when the issue of replacing Kim Berry for the remainder of her HDC term came up. Mayor Haven offered Jennifer Radcliff as the nominee. Reading from his notes and listing numerous highlights from her career, Mayor Haven painted a picture of someone who certainly appears to be very qualified for the job.
Council member Sue Wylie, always a staunch advocate of transparency, asked why Mayor Haven didn’t provide the council members with a resume so that they could review Ms. Radcliff’s qualifications for themselves. There was some discussion about whether or not someone’s resume should be included in the council packet (and subsequently published on the internet, creating privacy concerns), but Ms. Wylie said that she didn’t receive anything at all (not even an email with a resume included as she’d received in the past).
Mayor Haven didn’t care. From his perspective, only HE was entitled to see nominee qualifications. Our other elected officials were just going to have to rely on whatever he chooses to share with them and the public. (Mr. Haven might want to review the Charter again – other than ceremonial duties and getting to chair the council meetings, he isn’t in a superior position to other council members.)
Mayor Haven told the council that he had considered several people for the opening. Council member Wylie asked who else was considered, but . . . Mayor Haven wouldn’t tell her. Not only that, Mayor Haven said that he saw this appointment as just a “procedural thing” – council members were entitled to vote yes or no, take it or leave it. If they rejected the nominee, then Mayor Haven said he would bring another one forward (presumably cloaked in as much secrecy as the first).
I don’t know Ms. Radcliff, can’t comment one way or another on her qualifications, and nothing I’ve said here should be construed otherwise. If we accept what Mayor Haven read from his notes as true, then she certainly sounds technically qualified for a seat on the HDC to this layperson’s ears.
But Ms. Radcliff’s name was familiar to me for another reason. If you click on the post titled “November 2018 Election,” you’ll be reminded again that Mr. Haven began his secret mayoral campaign on July 12th without resigning from his current elected position (conduct that was prohibited by Charter). When you look at the names of the people who signed the Haven, Catallo, and Avery petitions that day, it certainly seems as though they were all in the same place at the same time.
What name is found in all three lists of petition signers on July 12th? Ms. Radcliff’s name.
Coincidence? We will never know. It’s just another one of those secrets that Mayor Haven doesn’t think you need to be concerned with.
The video of the meeting can be found at the following link, and the discussion begins around the 1:01 mark:
http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/2475?channel=2)