OPINION: Killeen council should have been informed of resignation

Yet, none of the council members present for Tuesday’s vote canvassing and swearing-in ceremony knew that he had already resigned — more than a full day before.

Because of Wilkerson’s absence Tuesday, as well as that of Councilmen Jose Segarra and Ramon Alvarez, the council lacked a quorum. That’s because Councilman Riakos Adams lost his race for reelection and was not present, leaving only three sitting council members — one short of the number needed to conduct business.

Only a rushed swearing-in of newly elected Councilman Joseph Solomon allowed the two scheduled meetings to proceed.

On Wednesday morning, the city announced that Wilkerson had resigned Monday — and then only after the Herald had broken the story. The city’s announcement came just after council members were informed by City Manager Kent Cagle of Wilkerson’s departure.

The fact that the full council didn’t know sooner is inexcusable on several levels.

First, Wilkerson should have told his colleagues that he had resigned as soon as he turned in his letter to Cagle — if not sooner.

Not only had many of his fellow council members worked with Wilkerson since his election in November 2020, but they had also placed their trust in him by electing him mayor pro tem last year, a position he held until his resignation last week.

In comments to the Herald, Wilkerson said he had been considering leaving the council since late last year. He cited career, health and family considerations in making his decision to step down. He also noted that the swearing in of a new council was an opportune time.

Certainly, the situation was a bit complicated. The council voted to reprimand Wilkerson earlier this month in response to an incident at an April 18 council meeting, in which the mayor pro tem left the dais to confront an audience member who had made some incendiary comments after speaking at the podium a few moments earlier.

Mayor Debbie Nash-King read the proposed reprimand and asked the council to approve it, but no one spoke up. Ultimately, it took a motion from Wilkerson himself to bring the action to fruition.

Wilkerson is to be commended for stepping up and facing the music over his unfortunate behavior at the April 18 meeting. However, his decision to resign his seat without informing his council colleagues came across as inconsiderate and selfish.

It was also inconsiderate of the city manager to withhold the news of Wilkerson’s departure for nearly two days.

At the very least, Cagle should have informed council members at the outset of Tuesday’s meetings that Wilkerson would not be returning to the dais.

The city manager did tell the mayor later in the evening that Wilkerson had resigned — but only after she asked Cagle where he was.

Council members had a right to know of Wilkerson’s decision before Tuesday’s meetings, especially since they were tasked with nominating and electing a mayor pro tem that night. What if a council member had put Wilkerson’s name in nomination, without knowing he had quit? Would Cagle have told everyone the news at that point?

Cagle reportedly believed that he could convince Wilkerson to change his mind about resigning, but that doesn’t change the fact that Wilkerson had already done so.

The council had every right to know — before Tuesday’s meeting — that the current mayor pro tem was no longer serving on the council.

Ultimately, how Cagle handled the situation is not open for debate.

The city manager’s decision to wait until Wednesday morning to inform the council was ill-informed and unfortunate — especially since former Council member Mellisa Brown had already heard the news and was spreading it through the council chamber during Tuesday’s meeting — as the city’s elected officials sat nearby, deliberately kept unaware.

The Herald emailed the city manager several questions about his handling of Wilkerson’s resignation, but as of late Friday, he had not responded.

According to the city charter, the council is technically the city manager’s boss, and as such, Cagle’s decision to keep members in the dark for two days put them at a significant disadvantage, and amounts to poor judgment on his part.

As the dust settles from this tumultuous week, the council must move on to finding a replacement for Wilkerson’s at-large seat.

The city charter calls for the council to appoint a new member when there is a resignation — just as members did when they appointed Adams to Nash-King’s seat when she became mayor last year.

Since there is nearly a year left on Wilkerson’s term, the council’s choice of appointee merits careful consideration.

Ultimately, the city would be better served if the council were to call an election to fill the seat, though the charter doesn’t stipulate that course of action.

The city’s voters chose Wilkerson not once, but twice. In his first run for council — the pandemic-delayed election of November 2020, which tied into the presidential election — he topped all city council candidates with 13,794 votes. He finished second among at-large council candidates in his reelection campaign last year.

As such, it seems both unfair and unwise to take the ballot out of the hands of the city’s residents in choosing his replacement.

If the council does opt to make the selection of a replacement, as it did last year, members must take care to ensure an adequate and well-publicized application period.

Council members also must commit to interviewing all candidates who apply before making a final decision.

Before beginning the interview process, council members should agree on an established list of qualities they would like to see in an ideal candidate.

Those should include good communication skills, a desire to work collaboratively toward a common goal, an understanding of the major issues facing the city, a basic knowledge of finance, and a commitment to transparency.

Taken together, these qualities add up to a potential for strong, effective leadership.

And given the events of the last week at City Hall, that is something that’s sorely needed.