Why You Should Vote NO on My Recall
Contributed by Mayor Steve Carrington
Recalls of elected officials are rare and they should be. They’re meant for serious breaches of public trust, not for disagreements over process or tough decisions made during difficult times. So why am I facing a recall now? Let me explain what actually happened.
The recall centers on my decision to contact an outside attorney to help draft an agreement regarding the termination of former City Manager Stephen Jellie. Some have said I should have waited for formal direction from the city council before doing so. But that leaves out important context.
The attorney I contacted wasn’t new to Palmer—he had already worked with the city before. I reached out during a time of legal uncertainty and escalating tension, not to bypass council authority, but to prepare a professional and legally sound option that could be brought before the full council for review.
That’s exactly what happened. The agreement that was drafted was presented to the council—and it was unanimously approved. Every single council member voted in favor of it. The severance amount—$75,000—was the exact amount outlined in Mr. Jellie’s contract, which had been previously approved by the council.
It’s worth noting that every council member has the right —and the duty—to vote against anything they believe is wrong or inconsistent with their values, principles, or legal obligations. That’s how our system works. If anyone on the council felt the agreement or the process behind it was improper, they had both the right and the responsibility to vote no. But not a single one did.
Here’s how we got to that point: On October 8, 2024, City Attorney Sarah Heath informed me that she planned to publicly read a complaint email about Mr. Jellie at that evening’s council meeting. Out of concern for due process and the emotional weight such an action might carry, I recommended addressing the matter in a private session with the council first. Despite that advice, the email was read aloud during the meeting, and things quickly became tense. Twenty-six community members, including many city employees, spoke during public comment.
Following that meeting, Council Member Graver, supported by Council Member Tudor, called for Mr. Jellie’s termination without an independent investigation. Council Members Graver and Hudson then called an emergency meeting to address the manager’s contract.
Amidst that uncertainty and the legal complexities at play, I contacted the outside attorney—again, someone already affiliated with the city—to prepare an agreement consistent with Mr. Jellie’s con- tract. That agreement was then presented to the full council, who voted unanimously to adopt it.
I understand that some people may still have questions about the timeline or the process. But at no point did I act in secret or for personal gain. I acted in good faith, doing my best to help the city navigate a volatile moment. I brought the agreement forward transparently, and the council made its own decision—exactly as it should in a functioning democracy.
To recall a mayor over a decision that was unanimously approved by the full council sets a dangerous precedent. If the process was truly flawed or improper, that accountability would extend beyond just me.
This recall effort isn’t about wrongdoing. It’s about disagreement—and disagreement is not misconduct. In fact, it’s a normal and even healthy part of government. What’s not healthy is weaponizing it to reverse the outcome of an election.
I’ve always worked to do what’s right for Palmer, even when the path wasn’t easy. I’m asking for your support to keep doing that work.
Please vote NO on the recall. Let’s keep Palmer moving forward—together.
www.MayorSteve.com