Members of Bloomington City Council discuss the possible removal of Greg Alexander from the city traffic commission on Wednesday, March 1, 2023. (Lucas Gonzalez, WFIU/WTIU News)
Bloomington City Council members are still no closer to deciding whether they should strip a traffic commissioner of his duties based on allegations of misconduct.
Council members on Wednesday heard the recommendations of a special committee tasked with researching the potential ouster of Greg Alexander — but they did not decide on any potential punitive actions.
The committee recommended that a February motion to remove Alexander, made by Councilman Dave Rollo, be withdrawn and that a modified motion be made according to specific guidelines. Rollo made a revised motion but ultimately withdrew it after discussion among the council.
Rollo cited Alexander’s controversial social media posts and handwritten letters to members of the public as examples of his inability to carry out the duties of his role. Alexander recently came under fire after several people, predominantly Elm Heights residents, complained to the council about alleged harassment and threats by Alexander.
Rollo argued that Alexander acted inappropriately and demonstrated bias against Elm Heights residents. He did not, however, ask that his colleagues vote on the revised motion Wednesday.
“To be clear, I do not make this motion because of Mr. Alexander’s substantive criticisms of the city, the council or myself," Rollo said. "Rather, I made this motion out of concern about Mr. Alexander’s fitness to carry out the duties of his appointment to the traffic commission.”
Read more: Bloomington traffic commissioner’s conduct referred to special committee
Rollo quoted some of Alexander’s tweets, including one that read: “Haters gonna hate and Bloomington democrats gonna lick the (expletive) out from between Elm Heights neighbors’ (expletive).”
Alexander said that tweet was meant to criticize what he perceives as preferential treatment for Elm Heights residents.
“The tweet that was quoted where I accuse Bloomington politicians of brown-nosing, I’m straight up accusing Dave Rollo — council member Dave Rollo — of having bias,” Alexander told WFIU/WTIU News. “That’s what the purpose of that Tweet is; I am accusing politicians of having bias. I am not demonstrating my own bias.”
Alexander has said Elm Heights residents have disproportionate influence over some members of city council, including Rollo. He cited two examples: the council’s decision to install a stop sign at Sheridan Drive and Maxwell Lane despite the traffic commission’s recommendation and the amount of time residents were allowed to give testimony in support of the stop sign.
“I believe that it is harmful, the way that Elm Heights neighbors — not all of Elm Heights, but a specific group within Elm Heights closely aligned with the Neighborhood Association — has been using political processes to bypass those systems, to cut in line and to actually damage the existing transportation reform that we have,” Alexander said. “If you want me to respect that political power, then I think it’s very appropriate to remove me from the traffic commission, because I don’t respect that use of politics.”
Members of the special committee on council processes met three times last month to discuss Alexander’s conduct before presenting its findings and recommendations Wednesday. Although Rollo is a member of the committee, he recused himself from those discussions.
Councilman Stephen Volan challenged the characterization of Alexander’s comments as threatening and questioned who makes that determination. He also voiced concerns that a section of local code addressing the removal of board or commission members is too vague.
“You cannot have a process that’s due if it’s made up on the fly, and we’re scrambling because we’ve had this unprecedented situation,” Volan said. “To me, a due process is one that was considered soberly, outside of any given case — and here we are being asked to consider a case.”
Read more: Bloomington city council considers removing traffic commissioner for social media posts
City code says the city council can remove a council appointee to a city board or commission “for cause.” The code cites excessive absences as an example of cause but otherwise leaves it open to interpretation.
Volan said city council should establish a more clearly defined process that would address Alexander’s specific situation and others. He encouraged Rollo to lead that effort.
But Councilman Ron Smith said the council should be able to remove an appointee for inappropriate behavior, regardless of whether their specific conduct is addressed in local code.
“This is a lot about what we stand for,” Smith said. “We must be able to remove somebody if the behavior is egregious, and if they are not able to perform their duties in an unbiased way — and it seems to me that both of those things are going on right now.”
Smith also said the actions of a council-appointed official reflect on the city council. He made it clear he would vote for Alexander’s removal if given the opportunity.
“We need to be able to have a process to remove that person,” Smith said. “And so, we are going along that process now and it’s a little bumpy because you’ve never done it before, but that shouldn’t prevent us from doing our job.”
He continued, “The legalese that goes along with all this … I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have those feelings. But, you know, the evidence exists and there’s a process involved.”
Volan challenged Smith’s comments, particularly on his use of the word “egregious.”
Read more: Commissioners remove health board member a week after picking replacement
“How do we define ‘egregious?’” Volan said. “Who defines it? I mean, this is not the rule of law. This is the rule of personalities. Somehow, we were all elected to be lawmakers. So even if we’re not lawyers, we’re making laws — so the idea that somehow, we are not lawyers or that all this is legalese misses the point. We’re supposed to be here to uphold the rule of law and to define the law.”
Volan also urged his colleagues to consider Alexander “innocent until proven guilty” and said the next course of action should be an ordinance to prevent similar incidents in the future, not an immediate motion to remove Alexander.
Rollo responded by saying Alexander is not being accused of a crime, so Volan’s comment on presumed innocence does not apply.
“Serving on a board or commission is a privilege, and I believe that he has abused that privilege,” Rollo said.
Volan replied, “You believe it, but that’s in. It’s just an opinion; it’s arbitrary.
Rollo pushed back again, saying, “If he has harassed the public, then he is ill-suited to be on a commission.”
Volan’s reply: “Define harassment.”
Read more: Mayor’s office names board appointments for capital improvements nonprofit
Other council members said the motion was not specific enough, lacked legal footing and was overly speculative about Alexander’s future ability to serve on the traffic commission based on past comments he has made.
Rollo repeatedly pointed to testimony from members of the public who said they had felt harassed or intimidated by Alexander.
“It has basically sent a chill among the public in terms of their ability to interact with a city commission,” Rollo said. “I think that’s a terrible outcome.”
But he eventually conceded, saying he needed more time to revise and expand upon the motion.
Alexander pushed back on the notion that he would use his official capacity to make anyone feel unsafe.
“Anyone who thinks that I am going to use my position on the traffic commission to try to endanger transportation users anywhere in the city needs to have their head examined,” he said. “When it comes to traffic safety, I have a very strong bias against traffic danger … that bias is much stronger than my feelings about any individual person.”
The council can take up the matter again at its next regular session on March 8 — but since it may not have business to discuss on that date, the discussion may be postponed until the March 29 regular session.
