Council: Murphy’s status is not in jeopardy
PALMDALE — The City Council worked to assure concerned residents that an item for discussion at its meeting, Tuesday, was not putting City Manager J.J. Murphy’s job in jeopardy and that he retains the full support of the Council.
“At no point in time has there been any intent, or any distrust, or any lack of support for the City Manager,” Councilmember Richard Loa said. “We have full confidence in our City Manager.”
The item in question stated it was to discuss possible revisions to the city’s municipal code regarding the removal procedure for the city manager.
There was also an item for closed session to discuss changes to the city manager’s contract.
No staff report or other background information was included in the posted agenda on either item, which led to concerns and rumors spread through social media that some or all of the Council was trying to remove Murphy.
In March, the Council revised the municipal code to require a fourth-fifths supermajority to remove the City Manager.
That revision was passed on a 3-2 vote, with Loa and Councilmember Austin Bishop dissenting.
Then and at Tuesday’s meeting, Loa stressed he felt requiring only a majority to remove the city manager helped keep the balance of power between the Council and staff, and stressed that it had nothing to do with Murphy personally.
“It’s purely on the principle that there has to be a balance between the city manager and Council, staff and Council,” Loa said.
“I have full faith in Mr. Murphy.”
A number of residents spoke out about the item during the public comment period that preceded the Council’s discussion, all in support of Murphy and questioning the need to make changes so soon after the revisions earlier this year.
In addition to the supermajority, Murphy, in January, received a one-year contract extension, to the end of 2024, along with an extension to the contract’s second term to the end of 2028.
The Council also agreed to a city-provided mortgage for a residence in the area in February.
Planning Commission Chair Stacia Nemeth, speaking only as a concerned resident, questioned the Council’s knack for repeatedly revisiting items for which they have already taken a vote.
“This has an appearance of instability and uncertainty,” she said, noting that every time something apparently settled is brought back, it not only incurs additional costs, but makes the Council seem indecisive.
Councilmember Juan Carrillo said he had requested the discussion, not with any intention of removing Murphy, but because he felt the matter needed to be revisited.
“It’s just a clean-up of the ordinance. It’s something I thought the Council should discuss one more time,” he said, referencing the fact that there is a portion of the community who feel too much was given to Murphy.
When the Council discussion actually took place regarding revising the code — no action was to be taken until a later date — they referenced the closed session contract discussion, which could not be stated in open session, City Attorney Christopher Beck said.
They ended agreeing to consider language for the revision at a later date, based on the closed session discussions.
“I think this is going to provide the security you’re looking for,” Mayor Steve Hofbauer said. “We want to make sure that we keep the City Manager here so somebody else doesn’t grab you.”
“I do appreciate everybody who has come out here tonight,” Murphy said. “I want the community to know that the Council and I have always pledged to move forward and move forward collaboratively. And that continues.”