n a Sunday night in November, Taneytown’s Mayor of six months fired the City Attorney of 20 years. The next day, at the Council’s monthly meeting the entire City Council publicly chastised Mayor Chris Miller’s unilateral action.
Miller’s termination of City Attorney Jay Gullo came four days after the City Council asked Gullo to investigate who leaked a confidential email. Also at that meeting, the Council asked Gullo to draft an ordinance clarifying that the Council, not the Mayor alone, can choose to fire the Attorney. Before Gullo had a chance to act upon the Council’s wishes, Miller dropped the axe.
Miller claimed his reason for firing Gullo was for a "culture and climate shift" at City hall. He told the Council he was acting upon the wishes of the people who elected him. Council members reminded the Mayor they were also elected by the citizens and said Gullo has done an exceptional job the past two decades and shown nothing but loyalty to the City of Taneytown.
The Attorney is an appointed position which Miller claimed falls under his termination powers. He also said he spoke to Mayors of other Maryland cities and the Maryland Municipal League, both of which supported his interpretation of the law.
Gullo’s termination has been on Miller’s mind since he was elected Mayor in May, he said. Council members, however, believe the Mayor has undercut the role of the City Council and the firing should have been done with consultation of the Council.
Miller accused Gullo of engaging in personal relationships with Council members and operating in a manner that did not respect City ordinances and code.
Gullo sent Council a 29-page memo detailing questionable behaviors "conveniently" revolving around Miller before the Mayor chose to terminate him, Councilmember Judy Fuller said. Fuller did not specify any of the "questionable behaviors" allegedly cited in the memo.
"I think it’s very important that the public realizes the kind of changes that you're making," she said.
"What you’re doing is destroying the town," Mayor Protem James McCarron said, stating that citizens will not reach out to Miller with grievances, "because you’re untrustworthy."
The Council chided Miller for his lack of transparency. Miller rebutted the claims by stating he discussed his intentions on Facebook and privately with Council members, but admitted he never mentioned the possibility of Gullo’s termination at a public meeting.
Council Surprised by Salary Given New Police Chief
At the Nov. 8 workshop meeting, Miller asked the Council to name Adrian Baker as Taneytown’s police chief. He also asked the Council to pay Baker $130,223 annually, even though the job posting capped the salary at $105,000. Miller supported his request by pointing out Baker will not be taking the City’s retirement benefit, which costs about $30,000 per year.
The City has been without a police chief since the resignation of former Chief Jason Etzler last November.
Council approved Baker’s hiring and requested salary but first pleaded with Miller for more transparency, however Fuller obtained, saying she feared the action could set precedence in pay for future chiefs and shortchanged longstanding employees who are not paid what they deserve.
"Every meeting we have something sprung on us that we were not prepared to deal with, that's the whole issue," McCarron said.
Miller claimed the Council received the information and that no member of Council reached out with questions. The Council refuted Miller’s claim, pointing out that they should not have to ask if he wanted to set a salary higher than what was posted.
Fuller also noted she could no longer trust email communication after privileged information was leaked from personal emails and in closed sessions.
Charter Discrepancies Questioned
Later in the Nov. 8 meeting, Fuller questioned discrepancies in the town charter. Miller repeatedly attempted to silence her because the topic was not on the agenda. The rest of the Council shot down the Mayor’s challenges, saying the purpose of workshop meetings was to mull around ideas and hear new business.
Finally allowed to speak, Fuller suggested adding verbiage to the City charter to state only the Council can fire the City Attorney, much like the City manager and police chief.
The recommended changes will enhance transparency, she said. Fuller later said her proposal came in reaction to finding out from other Mayors that Miller was planning to fire Gullo.
The Council unanimously voted to advertise the proposed changes at the Nov. 13 meeting, despite Miller’s objections. The Mayor claimed the amendment adding the removement power by vote of the City Council conflicts with the City charter.
Gag order
At the Nov. 8 work session, Gullo said Miller directed him not to speak with Council members outside of meetings. Miller claimed there were "a lot of" expenditures made by individual Council members receiving legal opinions from the City Attorney.
Mayor said he believed Council members were abusing Gullo’s position and there should be a cap on how much each Council member can contact the Attorney in order to save money.
City legal bills are between $5,000- $7,000 a month, averaging between $48,000- $60,0000 a year, Gullo said.
Miller claimed Gullo is available at meetings. Council members objected, noting information cannot always wait until a meeting night.
McCarron reiterated the Mayor does not get to dictate the free flow of information and receiving legal opinions from the Attorney between meetings has been Council’s standard operating procedure for 40 years.
Council Member Christopher Tillman said if someone is abusing the privilege of contacting the Attorney it should be addressed and handled on an individual basis, not by yanking it away from all Council members.
Source of Leaked E-mail Sought
The Council also asked Gullo on Nov. 8 to investigate who leaked a privileged email between the Council and Mayor which had a personal information in it on a specific individual.
In September, the citizen filed a Public Information Act request that included specific information only available to Council members and the Mayor, Gullo said. The Attorney advised the Mayor and City Manager to reject the request citing "discretionary privilege." The Mayor directed the City Manager to act against the Attorney’s advice and release the information. However the Council still wanted to know who leaked the original privileged document.
The Council has had limited contact with each other outside of meetings since the leak, McCarron said. The situation requires investigation, he reiterated, as the Council cannot have deliberative email conversations about anything without knowing if it would be secure.
"If we cannot guarantee that, we cannot move forward," Tillman said, pounding the table with emphasis.
Giving out privileged information is no different than opening the City’s bank account and giving out money, Gullo said.
At their Nov. 13 meeting, Council members announced their intentions to proceed with the investigation despite Gullo’s termination.
At the end of the contentious Nov. 13 meeting, Miller said he plans to move forward with hiring a new City Attorney but did not outline the process or whether he will include Council in the process.
He also chastised Council members for not working with him as he aims to fulfill his election goals.
"Yes, the direction of the town is changing. That is what I ran on, to change it," he said.
Tillman acknowledged Miller’s "door is always open" but encouraged him to work closer with Council and share information.
"I am not a mind reader, I don’t know what you are looking for," Miller responded.
