Taneytown Mayor’s actions
leaves City at standstill

During the Mayor and City Council Workshop on Dec. 6th, elected officials spent the first 30 minutes bumbling through questions normally answered by a legal expert. 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.

Council still tried to enact the ordinance, but City Manager James Wieprecht warned the action may cause an ordinance to conflict with the City Charter. The Council debated the veracity of Wieprecht’s assessment since the Charter does not specifically mention the City Attorney.

Wieprecht argued the Attorney could be viewed as a department head, which is outline in the Charter.

"Essentially, he or she is our legal department," Wieprecht said. "The Charter does say department heads, unless otherwise stated in the Charter, serve at the pleasure of the Mayor."

Councilman James McCarron urged the Council to move forward with the changes.

"Certainly, the delay has cost the city considerably," he said, referring to Gullo’s termination.

At the suggestion of Commissioner Christopher Tillman, the Council consented to delay a vote on the proposed ordinance change until Wieprecht proposes Charter revisions that match their intent.

Later in the meeting, Wieprecht told the Council that residents of Riffles Alley will have to wait for their storm drains due to the lack of a City Attorney. The Council plans to fund the Riffles Alley project with American Rescue Plan Act funds. To move forward, a deed of easement is required.

"While we can cut and paste something together, we really want an Attorney to review it before we can take it to anybody," Wieprecht said.

Councilwoman Judith Fuller, a vocal critic of Miller’s, tackled the issue head-on.

"With the adoption of the ordinances and resolutions, how are we dealing with the issue of not having a City Attorney to sign off on them?" Fuller asked.

Wieprecht said they will "accumulate" until a new Attorney was hired. However, Miller had no issue adding to the pile.

The Mayor, through his own legal analysis, believes he had the power to fire the Attorney with no checks or balances but he does acknowledge he cannot unseat Council members at his discretion.

Currently, the City Council must censure the Mayor or a Council member before they can face a recall election. A censure is a formal statement of disapproval in the form of a resolution that is adopted by majority vote.

Miller asked the Council to remove the censure requirement and allow a recall election to occur through a petition signed by 20 percent of registered voters. Miller estimated that would be about 1,200 signatures.

"I think that is completely unnecessary, I think it is great the way it is," McCarron said.

Fuller agreed, adding the censure adds another layer of accountability.

"It prevents a recall effort from being started for frivolous or undocumented reasons," she said. "Allegations must be vetted in an open, public forum with evidence and testimony."

Fuller added the censure process allows the accused to respond and limits "misinformation and lies." She said she feared eliminating the censure process would lead to political whims fueling recall elections instead of serious allegations of abuse of power.

"It is an important safeguard against the abuse of the removal process," Fuller said.

Miller maintained that acquiring 1,200 signatures is a monumental task and reminded the Council that an election would still follow the petition process under his proposal. He said he believed the censure process allows Council to protect itself — words that lit a spark in an otherwise calm meeting.

"If you want to have accountability, then first of all you have to look in the mirror and be able to accept some accountability," Fuller charged.

"If I had a mirror to show you, I would, but I don’t," Miller retorted.

The two continued to trade barbs over listening to public feedback.

"I think what you have going on is a propaganda thing and I think you should maybe take a step back and stop trying to fire or unseat people who don’t agree with what you are doing," Fuller suggested. "We are not just speaking for ourselves. We are speaking for our citizens who are reaching out and saying ‘how do we stop this guy, he’s out of control?’"

Miller claimed a Council member privately referred to the proposal as "communism" or "mob rule." He did not name the Council member and no one made such claims during the meeting but Fuller did agree Miller’s proposal was "mob rule." She said she fears the Mayor will "go door-to-door getting people riled up about things you made up."

Miller did not defend Fuller’s claim that he spreads lies.

"Imagine talking to your constituents, that’s a new concept to ya’ll, I understand that," he said.

Fuller said she does talk to citizens but, unlike Miller, does not "rule through Facebook."

Tillman agreed with Fuller and said removing the censure process could lead to partisan politics fueling recall elections. McCarron, after several unsuccessful attempts to squash the discussion, reminded the Council that recall elections are costly to the taxpayer.

Even though all Council members present said they were not interested in advancing Miller’s proposal, he continued his rant by calling the Council "aristocrats" who only want to be held accountable at election time.

Commissioner Diane Foster again suggested the Council move on, but Miller continued to speak. He claimed the Council violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act by discussing a proposal via email. The Maryland Attorney General’s Office Open Meetings Act Manual states Council members can discuss topics through email but not deliberate an outcome. Fuller and Tillman stated they were in accordance with the law since no decision was made. Fuller asked Miller if he took the State’s Open Meetings training course but he did not respond.

Miller said he would continue to propose changes to the recall election process, despite no Council members expressing support.

Moments later, Miller almost landed the City in hot legal waters when he began discussing "a tort claim regarding harassment or discrimination by elected officials."

"I think we are heading down a dangerous path," Wieprecht said.

Miller ignored his advice, and said there are two pending tort claims against the City.

"I would strongly advise that no one speak about an ongoing legal matter," Wieprecht said to reiterate his point.

Without prompting, Miller continued to defend firing the City’s Attorney. Tillman told the Mayor he believes the firing was not based on the Attorney’s performance but instead an attack on Council members.

The Mayor said he plans to recommend a new City Attorney in January. All Council members agreed to consider his nomination, although McCarron said he preferred the City rehire Gullo.

"Obviously, right now things are being delayed because we do not have legal representation," Tillman said. "We cannot continue like this."

Rift between Council & Mayor erupts into open