Will Mr. Perry leave again?
After viewing the Gloversville Common Council meeting of January 12, 2021, and reading the subsequent The Leader-Herald article of Jan. 13, “Chris Perry reappointed DPW director,” we felt it necessary to respond.
During the discussion portion of the Common Council meeting regarding the reappointment of recently resigned Chris Perry, councilwoman Anadio made two very important statements.
Anadio asked if by reinstating Perry, his resignation letter became moot and would he need to resubmit his personnel issues in the proper format, as outlined in the Gloversville City Charter. His concerns had been addressed in his letter of resignation, and personnel policies for such concerns had not been followed. This would be a logical way to proceed. This is not going to happen. The allegations based on hearsay are not being required to be submitted in proper format.
Councilwoman Anadio also asked if Perry had received the training required for Gloversville Department heads for procedures related to addressing personnel issues. This important and valid question was met by a glib response of “has anyone” by councilwoman Elizabeth Batchelor. The meeting moved forward and no other council member addressed this question. It is shameful this question was met with a sarcastic response and not concern. The council members should be fully aware of the classes and trainings required of department heads, and should not allow a lapse in the fulfillment of these requirements, which could lead to the situation we now have in the city. The city is currently pursuing an investigation into an elected official and anything connected to this must be taken seriously, that is if the investigators are being fair and transparent. Keep this in mind for the next election.
It was brought up by Councilman-at-Large [Bill] Rowback, that Mr. Perry’s resignation stated that he regretted taking the position in Gloversville and that he had already taken a position with a non-profit, and Rowback suggested that Perry could be inclined to change his mind about his employment, leaving the DPW again. I submit that Mr. Perry, being so unhappy, could have taken it upon himself to read the procedures for filing complaints, and followed them; he did not. He chose to leave, in a flurry of negative comments about the city that he had served.
We wonder, when the investigation is over, and it is found that allegations, made by Mr. Perry, are unfounded, here say based falsehoods, will the city see Mr. Perry leave again, because he didn’t get his way?
BOB and SALLY FANCHER