Loveland - November 28, 2015
Newly elected Loveland City Councilman Richard Ball sent a letter on November 20, on his legal firm's
stationary, threatening colleagues with referral to the city's attorney for prosecution if he finds their
behavior toward city employees crosses the line of conduct allowed in the city's charter. Ball quotes from
the city's charter section 8-5 (a) which Ball states in his letter,
"Specifically provides that we are prohabited [sic] to '...give orders or reprimands to any such
employee.'"
While it appears he may have intended to say "prohibited" instead of "prohabited" the letter has other
numerous spelling errors or typos which lend themselves to alternative interpretations that resulted in
various interpretations by his own befuddled colleagues. In one instance, Ball refers to the
"...moral that exists in the city, due to what they feel is a pattern of combative and abusive behavior
on occasion by our elected Councilman."
One colleague of Ball's on the city council interpreted this as finger pointing towards his own passionate
comments during meetings somehow lowering the overall morals of the city staff due to a literal
interpretation of what was written in Ball's letter. Another, who said he discussed the letter with Ball
directly, explained to LovelandPolitics that Ball intended to say "morale" not "moral" and "councilmen" in
general and not identify anyone in particular despite capitalizing the title and using the singular form of
"Councilman."
In addition, Ball also states he has witnessed behavior that comes "pretty close to the line" of violating
the city's charter and later threatens "I will not hesitate to refer a matter to the City Attorney if I
believe any of us violate the provisions of Section 8-5(a). Spirited debate and disagreement on
matters can take place without verbal abuse, condescending remarks and impolite behavior."
Letter Incorrectly Interprets the City Charter
The third paragraph of Ball's letter states,
In the orientation on Wednesday November 18th it was brought to our attention that our City
Charter has a specific provision which addresses the conduct of Councilmembers concerning all City
employees. Charter sect. 8-5(a) specifically.....
In fact, Section 8-5(a) concerns not "all City employees" [sic] as stated in Ball's letter but only those
subordinate to the city manager,
(a) Neither the Council, the Mayor, nor any Council member, shall dictate or interfere with the appointment
of, or the duties of, any City employee subordinate to the City Manager or to the City Attorney,
Section 8-5(b) concerns the city manager position which does directly report to the city council and indeed does take
direction from the city council contrary to what Ball asserts in his letter. This is an important distinction since Loveland
City Manager Bill Cahill has been the primary target of the heated debates and comments from the city council that Ball is
likely trying to silence by his letter. Cahill and the city attorney are openly copied on Ball's letter.
Newly elected Loveland City Councilman Richard Ball sent a letter on November 20, on his legal firm's
stationary, threatening colleagues with referral to the city's attorney for prosecution if he finds their
behavior toward city employees crosses the line of conduct allowed in the city's charter. Ball quotes from
the city's charter section 8-5 (a) which Ball states in his letter,
"Specifically provides that we are prohabited [sic] to '...give orders or reprimands to any such
employee.'"
While it appears he may have intended to say "prohibited" instead of "prohabited" the letter has other
numerous spelling errors or typos which lend themselves to alternative interpretations that resulted in
various interpretations by his own befuddled colleagues. In one instance, Ball refers to the
"...moral that exists in the city, due to what they feel is a pattern of combative and abusive behavior
on occasion by our elected Councilman."
One colleague of Ball's on the city council interpreted this as finger pointing towards his own passionate
comments during meetings somehow lowering the overall morals of the city staff due to a literal
interpretation of what was written in Ball's letter. Another, who said he discussed the letter with Ball
directly, explained to LovelandPolitics that Ball intended to say "morale" not "moral" and "councilmen" in
general and not identify anyone in particular despite capitalizing the title and using the singular form of
"Councilman."
In addition, Ball also states he has witnessed behavior that comes "pretty close to the line" of violating
the city's charter and later threatens "I will not hesitate to refer a matter to the City Attorney if I
believe any of us violate the provisions of Section 8-5(a). Spirited debate and disagreement on
matters can take place without verbal abuse, condescending remarks and impolite behavior."
Letter Incorrectly Interprets the City Charter
The third paragraph of Ball's letter states,
In the orientation on Wednesday November 18th it was brought to our attention that our City
Charter has a specific provision which addresses the conduct of Councilmembers concerning all City
employees. Charter sect. 8-5(a) specifically.....
In fact, Section 8-5(a) concerns not "all City employees" [sic] as stated in Ball's letter but only those
subordinate to the city manager,
(a) Neither the Council, the Mayor, nor any Council member, shall dictate or interfere with the appointment
of, or the duties of, any City employee subordinate to the City Manager or to the City Attorney,
Section 8-5(b) concerns the city manager position which does directly report to the city council and indeed does take
direction from the city council contrary to what Ball asserts in his letter. This is an important distinction since Loveland
City Manager Bill Cahill has been the primary target of the heated debates and comments from the city council that Ball is
likely trying to silence by his letter. Cahill and the city attorney are openly copied on Ball's letter.
| LovelandPolitics.com |
| New Councilman Threatens Colleagues With Prosecution |
SECTION 8-5 -- COUNCIL'S RELATIONSHIP TO EMPLOYEES (a) Neither the Council, the Mayor, nor any Council member, shall dictate or interfere with the appointment of, or the duties of, any City employee subordinate to the City Manager or to the City Attorney, or prevent or interfere with the exercise of judgment in the performance of the employee's City responsibilities. The Council, the Mayor, and each Council member, shall deal with such employees solely through the Manager or the City Attorney, as applicable, and shall not give orders or reprimands to any such employee. (b) The City Manager alone shall be responsible to the City Council for the proper administration of all matters placed in the Manager's charge by or pursuant to this Charter. |
| Newly elected Loveland Councilman and attorney Richard Ball sent colleagues a letter that he will "not hesitate" to refer them for prosecution for, "verbal abuse, condescending remarks and impolite behavior" to "try and bring civility" to the Council. |