ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

County Executive Sam Page said the proposal would cause chaos in county services and confusion among directors, and accused the council of misleading the public about it.

Minutes later, four councilmembers accused him of spreading falsehoods about the measure, and insisted Proposition B aims to hold department directors accountable.

The display laid bare the rancor between the executive and legislative branches in ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ County. And the relationship isn’t likely to improve over the next month as the public debate continues ahead of the April 8 election.

Both sides outlined their views before the press at county headquarters Tuesday afternoon.

Page said his administration communicates plenty with the council. County department directors, who oversee services including health, the jail and roads, would fear for their jobs if the seven-member council could fire them without cause. It could make ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ County a less friendly place to work, too, he said.

And, Page argued, referendums are expensive: The county must pay the elections board to get it on the ballot, and the county council is considering spending $520,000 in Rams settlement money to do it.

Page also said the measure could give the council the power to fire the county police chief. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ County Board of Police Commissioners last week unanimously to “not supportâ€� Proposition B, voicing concerns about a lack of clarity in the language and how it would impact the chief’s role.

“I want to be crystal clear here. Proposition B is bad for ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ County,â€� Page said.

After Page, four councilmembers took to the podium to respond: Chair Rita Heard Days, Councilwoman Shalonda Webb, plus Councilmen Dennis Hancock and Mark Harder. The four make up a bipartisan bloc who regularly oppose the county executive.

Days and Hancock addressed Page’s claims about the police chief. Days said the proposition does not give the council the power to fire the chief. That power rests with the police commissioners board, she said.

Hancock said he wants to introduce a resolution clarifying that councilmembers wouldn’t have the power to fire the chief.

Harder struck back at Page’s claims the measure would cause chaos in county services. He and other councilmembers have said Page’s administration has stifled communication between the council and department heads. The proposition would make directors answer to the council.

“We’ll get good information from the right people when it comes forward,� Harder said. “Right now, there is some chaos without this, and I think this will bring some stability to some of the decision-making in this building.�

As for the cost of the ballot measure, Webb said the county has spent similar amounts on other controversial issues. For instance, the county earlier this year agreed to pay $500,000 in a discrimination settlement involving former Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell.

Days addressed Page’s accusation that directors would be fired without cause. Directors would have the chance to appear before the council to make their case, Days said. Those conversations could happen in closed session to discuss sensitive personnel issues, she added.

Page also questioned who wrote the legislation that created the proposition. County lawyers didn’t write it, he said, and councilmembers haven’t said.

“It really begs the question, what are they trying to hide?� Page said.

Webb said she initiated the legislation, but declined to say who wrote it. She said she sought advice from multiple lawyers, but didn’t pay anyone either with county or personal money for legal services.

“I am responsible for it because of the situation we found ourselves in with our department heads, and so I will hold responsibility for that,� Webb said.