Mar 15, 2021 City Council Special Meeting

TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION, TO SPLIT IT INTO, UH, NEXT I HAVE, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I'LL BRING THIS BACK.

SO, OKAY.

SO FIRST UP WE HAVE, UH, MR. JOE HENDRIX, PLEASE COME TO THE VOTING FIRST.

YOU DO YES.

THE ORDER AND RECEIVE, HI, JOE, HOW ARE YOU? HOW ARE YOU DOING MR. MAYOR? I'M REALLY WELL THINKING WAY TO ADDRESS YOU, MR. MAYOR, HOWEVER YOU LIKE IS FINE.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON TONIGHT'S UP A SPECIAL MEETING SESSION.

MY FIRST THOUGHTS ON THIS FIRST AGENDA ITEM, UH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO RESOLUTIONS.

THE REZ, THE AGENDA ITEM, AS IT STANDS IS A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION AND RATIFYING AND APPROVING A CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

ROB SCHUMER.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPLIT THE TWO.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FIRST RESOLUTION OF WHICH SHOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF MR. SCHUMER.

AND THE SECOND ONE SHOULD BE TO RATIFY AND APPROVE THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

UM, EVEN THE LAW DIRECTOR JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THOSE WERE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES.

UM, IN FACT, THE CITY CHARTER SAYS THAT EACH RESOLUTION IN ORDINANCE SHOULD BE ONE SUBJECT.

UM, SO YOU SHOULD ALL VOTE TODAY JUST TO HAVE THOSE AS TWO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS.

UH, MY SECOND THOUGHT IS ON THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, WHICH A LOT OF THIS MAY NOT APPLY.

UM, CAUSE HE SAID THAT IT WAS ALREADY IN WRITING AND IT CAN'T BE CHANGED.

BUT MY THOUGHT IS THAT HIS ANNUAL SALARY FOR 2020, ACCORDING TO PUBLIC RECORDS WAS ABOUT 150,000 ANNUAL IS A 12 MONTH PERIOD.

UM, THE CURRENT CONSULTING AGREEMENT SAYS HE'S GOING TO BE PAID $150,000, AND THEN HE'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION THROUGH SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2021, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

THAT MAKES IT ABOUT DOUBLE HIS SALARY NOW BECAUSE IT'S 150,000 FOR SIX MONTHS IS AN ANNUAL SALARY OF 300,000.

UM, I DON'T THINK HIS ASSAULTING PAYMENT SHOULD BE GREATER THAN HIS CURRENT SALARY.

SO THAT MEANS HE SHOULD EITHER BE AVAILABLE FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR OR THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE 75,000 TO MAKE IT EQUAL.

UM, ALSO THE CURRENT CONSULTING AGREEMENT, UH, SAYS THAT HE'S GOING TO BE RECEIVE HIS PAYMENT IN A LUMP SUM WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE AGREEMENT RECEIVING THIS MONEY IN A LUMP SUM GIVES HIM NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY, PASSED THE DATE ON HIS LUMP SUM.

HE MIGHT HAVE MORAL OR ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS TICKETS TO CONTINUOUS ASSAULT, WHOLE HAVE NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION.

SO INSTEAD HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT IN PERIODIC PAYMENTS THROUGHOUT HIS THREE IT'S CONSULTATION AND EFFICIENCY CONSULTING THAN HE SHOULD SEE BEING PAID.

I BELIEVE AT LEAST TO THE FIRST ONE YOU COULD MAKE COUNCIL TONIGHT COULD MAKE THESE CHANGES, OF COURSE, BY HAVING A MOTION

[00:15:01]

I'M CURIOUS, UH, EACH COUNCIL MEMBER, WHEN DID YOU, UH, FIRST BECOME AWARE OF HIS PENDING RESIGNATION, BUT EVERYBODY COULD JUST TELL ME WHEN HE BECAME AWARE OF IT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO SAY IT WAS ON THE NINTH ON THE NINTH, CORRECT? I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST MONDAY DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I LEARNED OF THIS.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE EIGHTH EIGHT GROUP DISCUSSION.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I DID NOT SEE ANY RESIGNATION UNTIL THE NINTH LAST MONDAY, LAST MONDAY.

AND THEN I BELIEVE WE HAVE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON, I HAVE A QUESTION.

AND ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE RESIGNATION LETTER OR THE ACTUAL RESIGNATION WHEN YOU LEARNED OF HIS RESIGNATION? I MEAN, MY MONDAY AT THE MEETING, JUST LIKE THE COUNCIL.

THANK YOU, ED.

UH, THAT WOULD BE TUESDAY WHEN I RECEIVED IT, UH, BY EMAIL, THROUGH OUR CLERK OF COUNCIL OF THINGS, PUBLIC RECORDS.

AND NANCY, NANCY, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR THE QUESTION NANCY BIRD IS NOW EXITING? WE WILL ASSUME THAT THE TECHNICAL I'M NOT TRYING TO.

I HONESTLY THINK THAT'S TECHNICAL.

NEXT QUESTION.

UM, UNLESS NANCY CAN GET BACK WITH US.

I HAVE FOR THE LAW DIRECTOR.

UH, DID YOU WRITE THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT YOURSELF? UH, DID YOU WRITE IT ON YOUR OWN VOLITION OR DID SOMEBODY INSTRUCT YOU TO DO IT? WHO INSTRUCTED YOU TO WRITE IT? MOST LIKELY THAN THEIR OKAY.

WHAT'S MERIT.

WHEN DID YOU WRITE THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT? ON MONDAY? MONDAY WAS THE DAY OF MONDAY, MARCH EIGHT, 2021.

UM, I DID A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THAT YOU WROTE, NOT THE, NOT THE SIDE, ONE, NOT THE SCANNED ONE COMPUTER FILES HAVE SOMETHING CALLED METADATA.

SO WHEN YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF SOMETHING, IT TELLS YOU YOUR GEO LOCATION, YOU KNOW, YOUR LOCATION, YOUR LAT LONG.

ANOTHER THING METADATA ALSO TELLS YOU AS WAY TO SAY THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN, BUT METADATA, THIS IS WHAT THE METADATA SAID FOR THE DOCUMENT, BUT OUR LAW DIRECTOR WROTE, SAYS THAT IT WAS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 21 AT 4:52 AM.

MAKE SURE YOU'RE YEP.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT A CONSULTING AGREEMENT I DID FOR RECENT CITY, IT WOULD PROBABLY COINCIDE WITH THAT TIME BECAUSE I TOOK THE AGREEMENT FOR RAP SHOMER FROM THE AGREEMENT I DID FOR ANOTHER CITY MANAGER THAT RESIGNED.

SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS FROM FEBRUARY.

IT'S THE CITY OF VANDALIA IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO KNOW.

SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WHATEVER YOU WROTE, WHEN YOU PUT THIS CONSULTATION OR CONSULTATION AGREEMENT TOGETHER, YOU USE THE TEMPLATE THAT YOU HAD USED USED PRIOR, AND THAT'S WHY THE DATA MIGHT'VE SHOWN BACK IN FEBRUARY.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S WHERE THE AGREEMENT THAT I DID FOR MR. SCHIRMER WAS LIFTED FROM MY OWN AGREEMENT THAT I DID WITH, UH, ANOTHER CITY MANAGER.

SO, UM, MR. , YOU GOT A QUESTION ABOUT SEPARATING THIS RESOLUTION INTO TWO.

IS THERE, UM, IS THERE A REASON MR. MCDONALD'S THAT IT'S DONE THE WAY THAT IT IS, OR WOULD IT BE PRINTED TO DO THAT FOR, UM, OR IS THE WAY IT IS THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE? UM, TYPICALLY WHEN THE CITY MANAGER RESIGNS IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RESIGNATION IS ACCEPTED BY MOTION HISTORICALLY, THERE'S STILL, WHEN I LOOK BACK, THAT WAS THE CASE.

I THINK THE RESIGNATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED AND SIGNED AND SEALED AND DELIVERED.

THIS WAS JUST TO TRY TO KEEP EVERYTHING INTO ONE SMOOTH LEGISLATIVE TRAIL, IF YOU WILL.

SO FORWARD, I GUESS I WOULD ASK THEM, UM, COUNSEL HAS HEARD WHAT MR. HENDRICKS WAS RECOMMENDATION IS, IS THAT THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO SEPARATE THESE TWO OR TO AMEND THIS, OR, UM, I'M JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE ON WHAT COUNCIL WOULD, WOULD PREFER TO DO HERE SO WE CAN, UH, EITHER AMEND OR, OR NOT.

WHAT IF THE WILL OF COUNCIL IS TO SEPARATE THEM? THAT'S FINE.

[00:20:05]

YES, MS. BAKER, I FEEL LIKE IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND PASSED.

LIKE THE SHIP'S ALREADY, LIKE IT'S ALREADY LEFT THE DOCK.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

BUT FOR YOU TO GO BACK AND REWRITE LEGISLATION HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED.

I THINK, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN GO BACKWARDS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S REWRITING THE QUESTION, AT LEAST IN SOME AREAS.

AND THE QUESTION WAS JUST SEPARATING THE RESIGNATION ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND THEN THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT INTO ANOTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT MR. HENDRICKS WAS ASKING.

MR. WEBB, THANK YOU, MARILYN.

IF I UNDERSTOOD JERRY CORRECTLY, THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WE HAVE IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT.

SO JERRY, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH STRIKING, UM, ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF, AND STRIKING THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE AND JUST, UM, ACCEPTING THIS AS OUR RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND APPROVING OUR CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

DO YOU SEE ANY ISSUES WITH DROPPING THAT OUT OF THE, UM, RESOLUTION BEFORE US TONIGHT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE? NO, PROCEDURALLY, I THINK THEY'D HAVE TO, WE WE'D HAVE TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION PROCEDURALLY, BUT THERE WOULD ALSO BE OTHER SECTIONS, UH, AND WHEREAS CLAUSES WITHIN THE RESOLUTION THAT ADDRESSED THE, THE, UM, RESIGNATION OF THE CITY MANAGER.

SO, UH, IF WE WERE TO DO THAT AND STRIKE THAT OUT IN THE TITLE, WE'D ALSO HAVE TO STRIKE THE RELEVANT SECTIONS FROM THE RESOLUTION ITSELF AS WELL.

SO IF, IF I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER, IF I DON'T SEE A RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, LET'S SPLIT THESE TWO UP, THEN WE'LL JUST, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD AS, UH, AS IT'S WRITTEN.

NEXT UP I HAVE, UH, MR. DAVID THOMAS, IF YOU PLEASE, AND REMEMBER, UH, TONY, I HAVE A COMMENT AS WELL.

I DO.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT TO CLEAR THINGS UP.

UM, DAVID THOMAS.

UH, TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WOULD BE BECAUSE I WANTED THIS COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE THE TWO AND IN COMPARISON WITH THE NUMBER THAT CAME BACK FROM OUR HR DIRECTOR, VERSUS WHAT MR. SCHIRMER WAS GOING TO GET ANYWAY, THEN THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, IT SEEMED TO MAKE THE MOST SENSE.

BIRCH IS NOW JOINING.

THAT'S WHY I LIKE ZOOM BETTER.

THAT'S ME PERSONALLY.

I'M A GOOGLE MEET GUY.

ANYWAY.

UM, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS JUST TO CONFIRM EXACTLY THAT IT WAS A RESIGNATION AND NOT A FIRING, CORRECT.

I MEAN, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK IS THAT PUBLIC RECORD? SO I THINK, UM, WHAT I HAD SAID IN MY, UM, IN MY STATEMENT WAS THAT I AM THE ONE WHO, UH, BEGAN THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEPARATION OF, OF, OF MR. SCHOMER FROM THE, FROM THE CITY.

AND THERE WERE, UH, SOME OPTIONS THAT WE HAD THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ON WAYS THAT THAT COULD, COULD HAPPEN.

AND BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE RESIGNATION, AND TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION AND THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT WAS THE, WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS COUNCIL AGREED WAS, WAS THE BEST AS THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO DO.

UM, SO ONE THING I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TOO, IS, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE $150,000, SO PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, MR. SCHIRMER'S, UH, VACATION ACCRUAL WAS ABOUT $41,000.

SO UPON A RESIGNATION OR ON A TERMINATION WITH CAUSE, OR WITHOUT CAUSE, UH, $41,000 OF THE $150,000 MR. SCHOMER WAS GOING TO GET ANYWAY, THAT WAS HIS MONEY.

SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $109,000 DIFFERENCE BECAUSE 41,000 WAS HIS TO BEGIN WITH.

UM, YOU KNOW, LOOK, WE, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT A, UH, A REMOVAL WITHOUT, CAUSE.

UH, I HAD ACTUALLY ASKED THE LAW DIRECTOR TO GET WITH OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR,

[00:25:01]

SO I, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD A PROFESSIONAL CAREER PRIOR TO THIS.

I'VE ACCEPTED MANY RESIGNATIONS FROM PEOPLE AND I'VE NEVER, EVER ONCE SEEN RESIGNATION THAT SAID, YOU ALL SUCK.

I HATE EVERY ONE OF YOU.

I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN, I'M OUT OF HERE.

I'VE YET TO SEE A RESIGNATION LETTER THAT LOOKED LIKE THAT OR RESEMBLED THAT.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S, UM, I THINK IT'S OUT OF THE QUESTION TO THINK THAT MR SCHOMER WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED A RESIGNATION IN THAT MANNER REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE REASONING WAS OR THE PURPOSE BEHIND IT.

AND SO I HOPE THAT MY SAME IT'S CLEAR, I'M THE ONE THAT BEGAN THE DISCUSSION.

AND AFTER WE HAD THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEEDED TO ASSESS, WHICH WAY WAS GOING TO BE THE BEST FOR THE CITY, UM, WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND, UM, MR. MCDONALD MADE HIS RECOMMENDATION AND I'LL JUST SAY IN EVERY EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO I'LL SAY RIGHT NOW, IF I'M TALKING ABOUT EXECUTIVE SESSION INFORMATION AND THIS COUNCIL'S UPSET, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START WRITING YOUR COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME.

UM, BUT IN EVERY EXECUTIVE SESSION I CLARIFY AND I ASK BEFORE, BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS THE ONE WHO HAS TO COME BACK OUT HERE AND SAT IN FRONT OF THE AND EXPLAINED WHAT'S GOING ON.

DID WE DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ACTION ON? I COME OUT AND REPORT THAT MOST OF THE TIME, BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME EXECUTIVE SESSION IS JUST A DISCUSSION.

AND OTHER TIMES WHEN WE DO TAKE ACTION, I ASK EVERYBODY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND I CLARIFY WITH ALL DIRECTOR, WHAT THE MOTION IS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR WHEN I COME OUT HERE.

CAUSE MOST OF THE TIME IT'S JUST ME BY MYSELF, EVERYBODY FROM COUNCIL, IF WE HAVEN'T DECIDED TO TAKE ACTION, EVERYBODY LEAVES.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ACTION AND COUNSEL COMES BACK OUT HERE, I MAKE IT CLEAR.

AND I ASK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKING SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE MOTION THAT I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT IS MADE.

SO EVERYBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

AND THIS LAST EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THIS WAS NO DIFFERENT.

EVERYONE KNEW WHAT IT WAS.

EVERYONE KNEW THE RECOMMENDATION.

IT WAS MOTION BY MS. BAKER WAS SECOND AND MR. HILL AND THIS COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE AT EIGHT TO ZERO.

AND IT SPECIFICALLY STABBED THAT WE WERE GOING TO DIRECT A LAW DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A RESIGNATION AND CONSULTATION ROOM WITH MR. SCHOMER FOR $150,000.

IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR THAN THAT.

UM, MR. SHAW, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO CANDLER OR OTHER ASSISTANCE COMMENTS, THEN WE'LL GET THE COUNCIL.

THEN MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE IF HE RESIGNED, BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNOW ANY JOB THAT I'VE HAD, THEY'RE NOT GIVING ME BASICALLY A SEVERANCE OR A BENEFITS PLAN.

SO LET'S STOP WITH THAT WORD.

THIS WAS NOT A SEVERANCE PACKAGE.

IN FACT, THE FIRST TIME I NEVER USED THE WORD SEVERANCE, THE FIRST TIME I SAW SEVERANCE USE WAS ON A QUOTE BY MR. OTTO IN THE DAYTON DAILY NEWSPAPER SEVERANCE.

THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I EVER SAW THAT.

AND I THINK I COULD ASK ANYBODY ON COUNCIL, HAS ANYBODY, DID ANYBODY HEAR THIS AS A SEVERANCE PACKAGE, OTHER THAN A CONSULTATION AGREEMENT? OKAY.

REAL QUICK.

BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR.

THIS WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AS A SEVERANCE PACKAGE.

SO ONCE PEOPLE START RUNNING TO THE MEDIA AND PEOPLE START DOING BLOG ARTICLES AND FACEBOOK POSTS, WHEN THEY START USING THOSE WORDS MATTER.

AND THAT WAS THE WRONG WORD, SEVERANCE PACKAGE WAS, WAS NEVER, WAS NEVER USED.

WELL, WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS THE RESIGNATION OF MR SCHOMER AND HE WAS GOING TO GET A CONSULTING AGREEMENT FOR NEW WORK, FOR NEW WORK THAT HE WAS GOING TO DO FOR $150,000, HOWEVER, $41,000 THAT WAS ALREADY HIS MONEY.

THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO IT'S A CONSULTING FEE AND NOT A SEVERANCE.

AND IN FACT, IF WE HAD TERMINATED, MR. SCHOMER WITHOUT, CAUSE IT WOULD HAVE COST THE CITY MORE MONEY AND MR. SCHOMER WOULD BE BYE-BYE AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE HIS KNOWLEDGE AND HIS EXPERIENCE TO HELP MR. FALKOWSKI THROUGH THE TRANSITION PERIOD.

MY OWN STUFF AND I WORKED FOR RUSH PACKAGE DELIVERY.

SO THEN I WOULD GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THEN.

WHY WAS A BENEFITS PACKAGE ADDED IN THERE, IF IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OR THE QUESTION WOULD BE, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN WHY WAS THERE A BENEFITS PACKAGE PERIOD, IF HE'S ALREADY GETTING CONSULTING FEE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WHEN I WAS A CONTRACTOR, I HAD TO GET

[00:30:01]

OR WHEN I WORKED FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AS A CONSULTANT AND AS A CONTRACTOR, THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME THE TEACHER'S BENEFITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY WERE THERE BENEFITS INCLUDED INTO THAT? I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A YEAR WORTH OF THE FIZZ, UH, UH, MEDICAL PAYMENTS, HERE'S MEDICAL PAYMENTS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS NEGOTIATED WITH MR. SCHOMER AS PART OF THE RESIGNATION TO MAKE THIS, WHAT I BELIEVE WAS THE EASIEST TRANSITION POSSIBLE.

UM, IF AGAIN, IF WE HAD WENT THE WAY OF A TERMINATION WITHOUT, CAUSE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING, UH, EXTRA OPRAH'S PERCENTAGES, MR. SCHIRMER MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO CASH OUT, EXTRA SICK PAY.

THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF THINGS HE MAY HAVE GOTTEN.

SO AGAIN, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE FLAT FEE OF ONE 50, THIS COUNCIL KNEW $41,000 WAS HIS VACATION PAY, THAT'S HIS MONEY AND THEN THE ONE OH NINE FOR CONSULTING AREA.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET MISQUOTED ON THIS.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT 40,800 AND SOME DOLLARS.

SO JUST MAYBE $150 SHY OF $41,000 WAS HIS MONEY OUT OF THE ONE 50.

UM, BUT LOOK, YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THIS COUNCIL WHY THEY VOTED TO APPROVE, UM, MEDICAL BENEFITS.

THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT VOTED ON IT.

UM, BASED OFF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR OF WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS GOING TO BE THE, UH, BEST TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM MR. SCHOMER, BUT STILL ALLOW MR. SCHOMER HIS KNOWLEDGE TO HELP OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UH, MR. FALKOWSKI AND OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER THROUGH THIS TRANSITION.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE THAT'S DYESS THAT CAN DENY THE FACT THAT ROB SHOMER, UM, WAS VERY INTIMATE WITH OUR, WITH THE ROSE MUSIC CENTER, UH, THAT PARTICULAR VENUE THAT'S PRODUCED OVER $3 MILLION WORTH OF PROFIT FOR THE CITY OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

UM, SCOTT MAY ADDRESS THIS LATER, BUT THE CEO FOR TRI-CITIES WHICH HANDLES OUR ENTIRE SEWER SYSTEM HAS RESIGNED.

ROB WAS VERY INTIMATE IN ALL THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH TRI-CITIES.

UH, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT FALLING APART.

THIS COUNCIL'S APPROVED ALL ABOUT $12 MILLION WORTH OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASES OVER THE PAST.

UH, TWO YEARS THAT MR SCHOMER IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN, AND MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT $150,000 IS LESS THAN A 10TH OF A PERCENT OF WHAT THIS COUNCIL HAS APPROVED IN REAL ESTATE PURCHASES TO ENSURE THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS DON'T GO TO WASTE EITHER.

AND THOSE DEALS DON'T FALL APART.

SO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT, I BELIEVE IS VERY FAIR.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM STATING THAT, BUT THIS COUNCIL IS THE ONES THAT ALL VOTED FOR THAT.

SO IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT, IS MEDICAL PAYMENTS AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATED CONSOLE, UH, CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, UM, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD ADDRESS.

AND I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

UM, IF HE RESIGNED ON MONDAY, WAS THAT OFFICIALLY THE LAST DAY OF HIS POSITION THEN OF LEGALLY BEING A, UM, EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, BECAUSE WHERE I'M GETTING THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HE WAS ALLOWED TO COME BACK IN ON TUESDAY AND GO UP TO HIS OLD OFFICE AND TAKE OUT ANYTHING THAT HE WANTED THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

AND I WOULD LOOK AT IT THAT TO ME, HE SHOULD HAVE, IF THAT WAS HIS LAST DAY WAS MONDAY, WHY WAS HE COMING BACK IN? AND IF IT'S COLLECT THINGS, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHY WOULD HE NOT HAVE LIKE AN ESCORT OR SOMEBODY GOING WITH HIM UP THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE IS NOT, AND I'M NOT, AND I'M NOT ACCUSING HIM OF ANYTHING, BUT TO SAY THAT HE'S NOT TAKING THINGS THAT ACTUALLY PAPERWORK OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE CITY.

INTERESTING INFORMATION, BECAUSE YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE.

UM, BUT SECONDLY, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THAT ROB SCHUMER IS STILL A MAN OF A LOT OF INTEGRITY AND OF HIGH MORAL CHARACTER.

AND IF HE WAS IN THE BUILDING, I DO BELIEVE, UH, THE, THE RESIGNATION AND CON UH, CONSULTING AGREEMENT WASN'T SIGNED OR EXECUTED UNTIL TUESDAY, BECAUSE IT WAS MONDAY NIGHT THAT WE DIRECTED THE LAW DIRECTOR TO GO EXECUTE THE RESIGNATION AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT NOW.

BUT THAT WAS ON TUESDAY.

I THINK IT WAS TUESDAY AFTERNOON WHEN I RECEIVED THE EMAIL FROM MR. MCDONALD, THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN, HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND IT WAS DONE SO UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT THAT DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED, UH, I WOULD SAY ROB WAS PROBABLY STILL THE CITY MANAGER.

UM, BUT ON THAT, UM, IF WE GO BY WHAT THE WORD EXECUTE MEANS, WHEN IT'S THE SIGNATURES ARE DONE AND IT'S, AND IT'S COMPLETED, I THINK ROB PROBABLY HAD A RIGHT TO BE HERE.

I KNOW HE NEEDED TO RE UH, HE RETURNED THE VEHICLE.

I MEAN, I'M, I'M SUR SURE THAT, UH, THAT NIGHT THERE WAS THINGS THAT, UM, HE NEEDED TO DO THE NEXT DAY WHILE SOME STAFF WAS HERE.

AND I TRUST THAT THAT ROBIN HAD DONE THE RIGHT

[00:35:01]

THING.

AND WHILE HE WAS IN THE BUILDING, I'M SURE MR. MCCALSKY KNEW.

I DON'T THINK ROB WAS JUST RUMMAGE AND AROUND.

UH, NOW THAT'S MY OPINION, BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT ROB DONE THE RIGHT THING.

I KNOW THAT NOW, IF I PUT ON A DIFFERENT HAT FOR A MINUTE AND SAY, AS A NONPROFIT GROUP, HE WAS LOOKING MORE FOR THE INTEREST THOUGH, OF THE ROSE AND THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAN HE WAS THE NON-PROFITS OF HUBER HEIGHTS, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE, HUH.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHAT ROB'S JOB WAS, BECAUSE IS ALL OPINION NOW, W W SO WHAT YOU BELIEVE HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS, OR HIS JOB WAS, ROB'S NOT THE CITY MANAGER ANYMORE, ACCORDING TO MR. UM, RIGHT.

BUT THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING.

THE QUESTION THAT I DID THOUGH, IN REFERENCE TO WHEN WAS HIS OFFICIAL LAST DAY, BECAUSE IT WAS TUESDAY.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR QUESTIONS.

NEXT UP.

WE HAVE MS. LINDA HAYNES, PLEASE COME TO THE BODY.

UM, FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU, JEFF GORE FOR, UM, THE MAYOR.

I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIM TODAY THAT LASTED AT LEAST HALF AN HOUR WHERE HE EXPLAINED THINGS TO ME SO THAT I COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON.

NOW.

HE SAYS, HE'S A GOOD FRIEND OF, UH, ROBINSON.

IF I WAS A FRIEND OF YOURS AND YOU STOOD UP FOR ME, LIKE YOU DID HIM, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

THAT MEANS YOU'RE A GOOD FRIEND, BUT IT WAS A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT WEEKEND.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE, UM, IMPARTIAL TO AS FAR AS YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY.

SO WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT I HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD TO IS IF HE RESIGNED THEN WITH THAT, HIS FIRST AGREEMENT, WHEN HE WAS EMPLOYED IN 2018, THAT WAS A LEGAL BINDING DOCUMENT.

AND YOU'VE CHANGED THE LEGAL DOCUMENT TO GO WITH HIS RESIGNATION.

SO TO ME, HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT YOU'VE NODE AND VOIDED THAT CONTRACT, THAT WAS A LEGAL BINDING DOCUMENT.

AND IT'S BEEN CHANGED.

IT SAID IN THERE, IF HE RESIGNED, THEN CERTAIN STEPS ARE TAKEN.

THOSE STEPS WERE NOT TAKEN.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I GOT THE QUESTION, RIGHT, BUT IN A CONTRACT YOU HAVE TWO PARTIES AND TWO PARTIES AGREED TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT, AND THAT CAN HAPPEN.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT, HOW COME NOBODY WAS AWARE OF IT? I BELIEVE EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF IT.

AND THEN, UH, HIS DOCUMENT, YOU SIGNED IT ON THE 10TH.

HE SIGNED IT ON THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOGISTICS PROBLEM.

I COULDN'T GET UP HERE.

AND CERTAIN PEOPLE, YOU WERE HERE ON THE EIGHTH THOUGH, AND THAT'S WHEN THE RESIGNATION FIRST OCCURRED.

SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES BENEFIT THE CITY IF HE WAS, UM, IF IT WAS, IF FOR ME, IF YOU TAKE OUT RESIGNED AND HE WAS REMOVED WITH OR WITHOUT, CAUSE THAT MAKES A HECK OF A DIFFERENCE TO THE CITY AS FAR AS FINANCES GO.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ALL ACTED AS FIDUCIARIES TO HELP THIS CITY AS FAR AS THE CLASS THAT IT COULD INVOLVE.

BUT I DO NOT APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, ON THE 10TH MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WENT BACK AND FORTH AND SAID THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR.

SO IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN DOCUMENTATION IN WRITING.

SO YOU KNEW WHAT WERE INVITED VOTING FOR OR AGAINST.

SO TO ME AS A, UH, PIECE OF ADVICE FOR COUNSEL IN THE FUTURE IS YOU SHOULD HAVE HIS EMPLOYMENT, HIS ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT RECORD FROM 2018 THAT SAYS, IF HE RESIGNS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

SO TO ME, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU ALL BEFORE YOU VOTED.

THE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD, ONE ON THE 10TH, THE EMERGENCY MEETING ON THE 10TH, THERE WAS FOUR, THREE OR FOUR OF YOU THAT SAID THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS VOTING FOR.

YOU ALSO SHOULD HAVE HAD A COPY OF THE NEW CONTRACT, THE CONSULTATION CONTRACT, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS RESIGNATION LETTER IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO I RECOMMEND IN THE FUTURE THAT YOU DO NOT GO BACK AND FORTH, THAT YOU WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO YOU'LL ALL KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR BECAUSE ON

[00:40:01]

THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE PEOPLE, YOUR CONSTITUENTS, ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE COUNCIL, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR.

AND I WILL ADDRESS THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT AS WELL.

AND, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR SUGGESTION AND YOUR COMING HERE.

I APPRECIATE HER PHONE CALLS AFTERNOON, AND I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT'S GREAT ADVICE IN THE FUTURE.

IF WE EVER FIND OURSELVES IN THIS SITUATION AGAIN, I CERTAINLY DON'T DISAGREE THAT THAT'S NOT THE PROPER WAY TO GO.

UH, BUT I HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT UP WITH, WE DID HAVE THE DISCUSSION IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON.

AND IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY ISSUE, ANY ONE OF THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WOULD HAVE ASKED, HEY, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT BEFORE I VOTE ON IT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ISSUE WITH THAT.

IF ANYBODY WOULD HAVE SAID, HEY, I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RESIGNATION LETTER BEFORE I'VE LIVED ON THAT.

THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

WE WOULD HAVE STOPPED RIGHT.

THEN WHEN I ASKED AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE IN SECOND, WHEN I ASK, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE APPROPRIATE AND PERFECT TIME FOR MR. OTTO FOR MR. SHAW OR MR. LYONS TO ASK, HEY, I'M SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

AND WE COULD HAVE STOPPED EVERYTHING RIGHT THEN, BUT NO ONE DID OR COULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN AN, YOU CAN JUST ABSTAIN FROM BOATING IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

SURE.

THAT'S CERTAINLY CARRIED OVER TO A SECOND.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD HAVE HAD THE MOTION AND THEN THE SECOND, AND WHEN I ASKED FOR DISCUSSION, ANYONE COULD HAVE SAID, HEY, CAN WE STOP THIS? I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THE AGREEMENT.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THE RESIGNATION LETTER.

I WOULD PREFER THAT WE NOT VOTE ON THIS OR THAT WE NOT DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE'VE SEEN ALL THAT, THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MS. BAKER AND SECONDED BY MR. HILL.

AND WHAT I HEARD WAS EVERYBODY'S SITTING ON THEIR HANDS.

AND THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME TO CALL THE VOTE, MR. LYONS WAS FIRST, I BELIEVE ALMOST A MINUTE PASSED BEFORE HE MADE HIS DECISION.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MR. LYONS WAS CONTEMPLATING.

UM, WELL, SHOULD I VOTE? YES OR NO, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE YET.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THE AGREEMENT.

MAYBE THE AGREEMENT WILL COME BACK.

EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON THAT SITTING HERE TONIGHT.

I AM 1000000% CONFIDENT.

EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON, BUT THEN MR. ROD HAS SET IN THE PODCAST THAT HE HAD DONE WITH MR. TRUMAN, THAT HIS PHONE WAS BLOWING UP AND EVERYBODY WAS CALLING HIM.

OH, MR. ROD WAS NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHOSE PHONE NUMBER IS PUBLIC.

MY PHONE NUMBER IS PUBLIC AS WELL.

I HAD PEOPLE CALL ME.

I HAD CONSTITUENTS MESSAGING ME.

THE DIFFERENCE IS I CHOSE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

LIKE I HAD WITH YOU ON THE PHONE TODAY.

I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I WAS BLINDSIDED.

I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO GO TO THE MEDIA AND START GIVING, UH, NEWS, UH, INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO STIR UP CONFUSION, TO MAKE PEOPLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT I VOTED ON.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I DID.

I CHOSE TO HANDLE THE SITUATION DIFFERENTLY.

I CHOSE TO EXPLAIN TO THE PEOPLE THAT CALLED ME WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT I DIDN'T DO WAS LIGHT A FIRE TO THE MOVIE THEATER AND THEN SCREAM FIRE IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE BLAME FOR MYSELF.

THAT'S WHAT I DIDN'T DO.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.

A LOT OF STUFF.

WELL, MS. RHONDA, SOMEONE WE'RE JUST GOING TO THE MAYOR GORE.

HI, RHONDA.

HOW ARE YOU? GOOD COUNSEL.

FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO FOR THE COMMUNITY.

UM, SO I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND I WROTE A LOT OF STUFF DOWN, BUT I DO KIND OF WANT TO SPEAK FROM MY HEART.

SO FOR ME, I SIT IN A, IN SORT OF A MULTI-TIERED ROLE.

ONE IS A COMMUNITY RESIDENT, AND THEN ANOTHER ROLE BECAUSE I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CULTURE AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION.

UM, SO FOR ME, THE FIRST QUESTION, AND LET ME START BY SAYING THIS.

I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND HOW ROB BEING, YOUR FRIEND PUTS YOU IN A STRANGE SITUATION.

I GET THAT.

THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I APPRECIATE IT.

AND I'M GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OPENLY.

UM, BUT I ALSO SUPPORT WHAT THIS YOUNG LADY SAID, UM, THAT BEING IN A ROLE AS A LEADER, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO PUT THE CITY FIRST, YOU HAVE TO PUT

[00:45:01]

CITY BUSINESS FIRST.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS BEING THAT WE ARE BEING THAT COUNCIL DECIDED TO, UM, HANDLE ROB'S DEPARTURE THIS WAY, IS THAT HOW WE WOULD HANDLE EVERY EMPLOYEE'S DEPARTURE, BUT WE TAKE THAT SAME COURSE OF ACTION.

UM, SO IF THERE NEEDED TO BE A TERMINATION FOR CALLS, UM, WOULD WE OPT TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION? FOR WHATEVER REASON WE CHOOSE, IS THAT GOING TO BE A STANDARD THAT WE TAKE? UM, REGARDLESS OF FRIENDSHIP, REGARDLESS OF TENURE WITH THE CITY, I FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A NON BIAS, CONSISTENT POLICY AND WAY THAT THOSE THINGS ARE HANDLED.

AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT MOVING FORWARD THAT WHATEVER ALLOWANCES WERE MADE FOR HIM WOULD BE ALSO MADE FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

COULD I, CAN I JUST, CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION JUST BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO FORGET.

SO AS A COUNCIL, THERE ARE ONLY THREE EMPLOYEES THAT, THAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE.

OUR EMPLOYEES ARE THE CITY MANAGER, THE LAW DIRECTOR AND OUR CLERK OF COUNCIL.

OF THE CITY AND WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY MANAGER POSITION IS ALIGNED WITH THAT.

THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS, THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE FROM THAT POSITION ARE JUST THOSE THREE EMPLOYEES.

THE CITY MANAGER IS THE CEO OF THE CITY WHERE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE CEO OF THE CITY NOW BEING MR. SCOTT MCCALSKY WOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS ON ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE MATTERS OR PERSONAL MATTERS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND IT WOULD BE UP TO HIM TO DECIDE HOW HE WANTS TO HANDLE THOSE.

UH, THE LAST THING THAT ANYONE IN THIS COUNCIL IS GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN IS DEMANDING SOME TYPE OF, UH, ACTION ON AN EMPLOYEE BY, UH, MR. .

WE MAY HAVE DISAGREEMENTS.

I MAY HAVE SOME FRUSTRATIONS.

I MAY NOT LIKE WHAT I'M SEEING BY SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEES ARE, ARE MR. FALKOWSKI, HIS DETERMINATION, OUR HANDLING, AND THE WAY WE DEAL WITH OUR EMPLOYEES IS ONLY THOSE THREE, THE CITY MANAGER, THE LAW DIRECTOR, AND THE CLERK.

OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND SO MY, I GUESS MY, MY HOPE WOULD STILL BE THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONSISTENT POLICY WITH REGARD TO OF EMPLOYEES AT ANY LEVEL FROM OUR CITY THAT WE WOULD NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS, UM, FOR PEOPLE BASED ON OUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM.

UM, IT IS A MATTER OF CITY BUSINESS.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY ASK.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TOO, THAT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MY RELATIONSHIP WITH ROB HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

UH, IN FACT, I'M THE ONLY PERSON OF THE NINE OF US WHO DIDN'T VOTE.

UM, WE KNEW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO COST TO RELEASE MR. SCHOMER WITHOUT CAUSE THAT WAS GONNA COST MORE MONEY THAN WHAT IT WOULD'VE COST THROUGH THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS NEGOTIATED THROUGH MR. MACDONALD.

AND THAT WAS AGREEMENT THAT HE BROUGHT BACK TO THIS COUNCIL AND THAT'S WHAT THIS COUNCIL VOTED ON.

SO THE REASON I BROUGHT UP MY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ROB AS A FRIEND IS BECAUSE LOOK, IF ANYBODY THINKS OR TRIES TO POINT OUT OR SAY, THIS IS POLITICAL ON MY PART, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO THINKS THAT THIS WAS IN FACT, UH, I WAS EVEN ASKED, HEY, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS IN AN ELECTION YEAR? I WAS ASKED THAT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND MY RESPONSE WAS, YES, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

SO IF ANYBODY THINKS I'M GETTING PERSONAL BENEFIT OUT OF THIS, OR I, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE VERY HIGHLY MISTAKEN, THIS, YOU KNOW, DO YOU THINK I WANT TO BE SITTING HERE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON? NO, I MADE THIS SUGGESTION.

I HAD THIS DISCUSSION.

I RAISED THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS TIME.

THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME IN EVERY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S LEADING THE WAY WE'RE CHANGES NEEDED.

IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT THAT TIME WAS NOW.

AND THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I MADE AND THIS COUNCIL ACTED ON IT.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE ANY LEADER WHO MAKES A DECISION, UH, TO MAKE A CHANGE IN A POSITION THAT WILL HELP TO MOVE OUR CITY FORWARD, WHETHER IT BE A MAYOR, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY, AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OUTSIDE DISTRACTIONS AND INFLUENCES THAT CAN SOMETIMES IMPACT THOSE DECISIONS.

SO I DO APPRECIATE SEEING THE DIRECTION

[00:50:01]

UM, SO MY ASK WOULD BE, AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO, AND SCOTT, I'VE WORKED WITH SCOTT BEFORE WITH AMB.

I APPRECIATE SCOTT.

I DO THINK SCOTT IS FAIR.

UM, WHAT I WOULD HOPE IS THAT SCOTT AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER OR CAUSE I KNOW SCOTT, THIS IS TEMPORARY FOR YOU.

SO YOU SAY, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT ANYBODY THAT WOULD SIT IN THAT SEAT WOULD UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR RACIAL EQUITY, FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.

UM, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY'S SITTING IN ANY SEAT, WHETHER IT BE MAYOR COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER HAS TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THAT AT THIS TIME.

SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE MY ASK AS WE CONSIDER DIVERSE POOL OF CANDIDATES.

UM, IF SCOTT DOESN'T STAY IN THAT SEAT, THAT WE KEEP THAT FRONT OF MIND FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING, MS. SOMEONE, CAN I ADDRESS THAT REAL QUICK? SO, UH, ACTUALLY IN FACT, ON WEDNESDAY OR TUESDAY, SO TOMORROW LOSES TRACK OF MY DAYS TOMORROW AT THE WORK SESSION, UH, THERE IS AN AGENDA ITEM REGARDING AN RFP FOR A SEARCH FOR A NEW CITY MANAGER.

SO I THINK THIS COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE DECISION TO MAKE ABOUT PUTTING OUT AN RFP AND DOING A SEARCH, NOT JUST FOR THE CITY MANAGER, BUT FOR A FIRM THAT IS GOING TO OPEN UP AND DO A NATIONWIDE SEARCH FOR US.

UH, I AM VERY ADAMANT.

I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THAT, BUT I'M ABSOLUTELY GONNA MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COUNCIL THAT WE EXTEND THE SEARCH FAR AND WIDE TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO APPLY TO BE OUR CITY MANAGER AND AFTER, UH, W I'M ALSO NOT AFRAID TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS, WE HIRE THE BEST PERSON.

WHO'S WILLING TO MOVE TO THE CITY OF HEBREW HEIGHTS.

IF WE LOOK DOWN THE CHART AND IF OUR NUMBER ONE PICK IS WILLING TO MOVE TO HEBREW HEIGHTS, THAT IS A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

BUT IF WE LOOK DOWN THAT LIST AND IT'S THE THIRD OR THE FOURTH BEST PERSON ON OUR LIST, BUT THEY'RE WILLING TO MOVE TO HUBER HEIGHTS, THEN THAT'S THE PERSON THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND HIRING.

SO I WILL SAY TO EVERYONE, MY POSITION IS WE HIRE THE BEST PERSON.

WHO'S WILLING TO MOVE TO THE CITY.

AND I THINK ABSOLUTELY, UH, RACIAL DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, THE CANDIDATES THAT WE TALK TO AND WE SELECT, UH, WE'RE GOING TO NEED HELP.

WE'RE JUST ONE CITY AND SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF OHIO, BUT OUR NEXT CITY MANAGER MAY COME FROM SEATTLE OR MIAMI.

WHO KNOWS? WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

BUT I THINK WITH, UH, WITH A SEARCH FIRM, IF THAT'S HOW THIS COUNCIL CHOOSES TO MOVE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND, UH, A DIVERSE SELECTION OF PEOPLE FOR US TO INTERVIEW.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT PROCESS.

UM, I KNOW I'M TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME.

YOU CAN TELL ME TO SIT DOWN THIS EVENING.

IF WE'RE HERE TILL MIDNIGHT, HAVING A DISCUSSION.

I MEAN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS, INCLUDING ME TO BE ABLE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND CLEAR THE AIR.

SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS BEFORE THEY LEAVE TONIGHT.

EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, NOT WANTING TO DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF WHY MR. SCHOMER IS NO LONGER WITH US, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY CAN, THE CONSTITUENTS DESERVE TO KNOW SOMETHING.

UM, WE TALK ABOUT OPEN, HONEST AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT.

UM, AND PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK ALL OF THE SPECIFIC DETAILS ARE NECESSARY, BUT IS IT, IS IT SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, IS, IS IT A FRAUD? IS IT, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS TO ME, FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, THOSE THINGS TO ME, PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.

PROBABLY NATIONWIDE NEWS OR CERTAINLY AT LEAST, UM, MIAMI VALLEY NEWS, UH, AS A, AS A BIGGER REGION.

SO LET ME ADDRESS THAT REAL QUICK.

ALSO, UH, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEFARIOUS ABOUT ROB SEPARATION WITH THE CITY.

UH, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO, UH, LEGAL ISSUES.

ROB DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGALLY THAT, THAT, UH, CAUSED HIS REMOVAL, JUST LIKE IN LOTS OF PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WORKED FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UM, PERSONAL RECORDS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE TYPICALLY ALL KEPT PRIVATE.

THIS COUNCIL HAS SEVERAL TIMES DISCUSSED.

UM, PERSONNEL MATTERS.

THIS COUNCIL IS, UH, IN THE, IN THE PAST ALWAYS, UH, ASKED TO KEEP MATTERS OF PERSONNEL PRIVATE.

UH, BUT I CAN SHOW YOU IF ROB WOULD HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME COMMITTED A FELONY OR, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

NOT ONLY WOULD YOU BE HERE, BUT NEWS CAMERAS WOULD BE LINED UP HERE, AND THIS WOULD NOT JUST BE LOCAL HEBREW HEIGHTS, FACEBOOK NEWS.

THIS WOULD BE, UH,

[00:55:02]

SO AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT COUNCIL AGREED TO.

UH, THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO DO IS DISCUSS ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT ROB SHELMAR.

THERE WERE REASONS THAT IT WAS TIME FOR US TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, BUT I GUESS I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THE RESIDENTS, HAVE TO SAY TO POLICE, BELIEVE ME THAT NOTHING WAS DONE ILLEGAL AND THAT THE SEPARATION WAS, UM, W W IT WAS JUST TIME.

AND, AND THAT PROCESS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, I BELIEVE WAS THE BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO FINANCIALLY FOR THE CITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I, I CAN'T SAY THIS ENOUGH, ANY OTHER, AND ACTUALLY, SO BEFORE WE, AFTER ONCE YOU'RE FINISHING THIS ON THEM, BEFORE WE MOVE TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, UH, MR. FALKOWSKI, HOW HE SEES ROB'S ROLE, UH, HELPING HIM INTO THIS TRANSITION PERIOD.

BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE, I DO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT, BUT AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT CONSULTING AGREEMENT IS THE ONE 50 MINUS WHAT IS ACCRUED VACATION DOLLARS WERE ANYWAY, WHICH WAS ALMOST 41,000.

UM, BUT I THINK THAT DOES NEED TO BE MADE CLEAR, UH, CERTAINLY WHAT, HOW SCOTT IS GOING TO UTILIZE ROB IN A CONSULTING ROLE MOVING FORWARD.

AND IF ROB HAD DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL OR DONE SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST SO HEINOUS, THAT, THAT WE HAD TO GET RID OF IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WHILE THERE'S, THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD, WE WOULD HAVE AGREED TO LET HIM CONTINUE IN A CONSULTING ROLE WITH THE CITY.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD JUST ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE BELIEVE THAT, THAT WE MADE THE DECISION AND I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY FINANCIALLY, AND IN A WAY WHERE WE CAN OBTAIN ROB'S BRAINPOWER AND KNOWLEDGE ALONG THE LINES OF, OF WHAT THIS CITY IS DOING AND TO HELP HELP MR. MCCALSKY IF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR AWHILE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE, THE CITY IS ON THE CUSP OF, OF GROWTH AND SUCCESS THAT WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

AND ROB WAS A VERY ACTIVE PART OF THAT.

BUT AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE HE WAS A PART OF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE HAD TO STAY IN THAT ROLE.

IT WAS STILL TIME FOR A CHANGE, BUT I'M HAPPY THAT WE HAVE HIS KNOWLEDGE AND HIS ABILITIES TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.

AND I, AND I WOULD ASK MR. FALKOWSKI, IF, IF HE'S HAPPY TO HAVE ROB, UH, AVAILABLE FOR MEETINGS VIA PHONE CALL VIA EMAIL, EVERYONE ON THIS DICE, INCLUDING SOME OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, HOW MUCH YOU BELIEVE MR. FALKOWSKI, HOW MUCH INTEGRITY YOU BELIEVE MR. FALKOWSKI HAS, UM, HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE YOU HAVE AND, AND HIS ABILITIES.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND THIS COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AS HIM AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, THEN I WOULD ASK YOU TO BELIEVE IN TRUST AND WHAT SCOTT BELIEVES HE'S GOING TO NEED MOVING FORWARD.

I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT I BELIEVE THAT SCOTT COULD HANDLE HIS JOB WITHOUT ROB SHOMER, BUT THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

THAT'S BASED ON SCOTT APPRECIATE WELL, AND I, AND YOU KNOW, ME, I'M NOT JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I'VE INTERACTED WITH SCOTT.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT HE COULD RISE TO THE OCCASION TO BE THE CITY MANAGER, WITHOUT PAYING ROB $109,000 TO CONSULT HIM.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

SO I THINK HE'S MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO DO THAT JOB.

UM, AND I MEAN, THE SKILLSET THAT HE HAS MAKES HIM QUALIFIED TO DO THAT JOB.

SO, UM, I'M NO WAY IN NO WAY QUESTIONING THAT.

UM, A COUPLE MORE THINGS AND I WILL TAKE MY SEAT, I GUESS, IN THIS, MAYBE WE ANSWERED THIS ALREADY, BUT WHY WOULD WE WANT CONSULTATION FROM SOMEONE WHO WE MADE A DECISION THAT IT WAS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD IN A DIFFERENT THAT'S THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.

I MEAN, IF IT'S TIME TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, DO WE NECESSARILY WANT HIM TO CONSULT SOMEONE COMING IN WITH NEW IDEAS, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT MINDSET? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING MY, UM, MY POSITION ON THAT IS, SO I THINK ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY, IT'S KIND OF FROM THIS DATE, MOVING, MOVING FORWARD, AND NOBODY CAN TAKE AWAY THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT MR SCHOMER HAS HAD IN THE ROLE.

SO AS MUCH AS WE ALL BELIEVE IN MR. ,

[01:00:01]

MR. IS A CIVIL ENGINEER BY TRADE.

IN THE END, I THINK THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE COUNCIL HAVING TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION BASED ON THE TAX PAYER DOLLARS THAT THEY'RE SPENDING.

AND MR. FALKOWSKI IS, UM, HAS, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS SEE HIM HERE WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION, HE IS WORKING WITH THE KIND OF, LET'S JUST CALL IT IN THE WEEDS.

A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, HE'S IN THE WEEDS WITH WHERE THE ROADS GO IN THE ENGINEERING AND THE RETENTION PONDS, AND THE RETENTION, ALL THESE THINGS THAT HE'S BEEN DOING AND BEEN DOING VERY WELL OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS, THERE ARE STILL THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED TO SCOTT.

HE HAS NO ISSUE SAYING HE, HE THINKS HE'S GOING TO NEED HELP WITH, AND IT'S CALLING ON THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF IT LOOKS SPECIFICALLY TO, UH, TWO THINGS THAT I KNOW OF IS THE ROSE AND THEN OUR TRI-CITIES AGREEMENT.

THOSE ARE TWO BIG, BIG THINGS.

AND THEN I LOOK AT THE $12 MILLION OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASES WE'VE MADE THAT ROB HAS BEEN, UH, HANDEDLY INVOLVED IN.

SO I THINK ROB BEING A CONSULTANT HELPS CLEAN UP A LOT OF THINGS.

WE'VE DONE LEGISLATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED AS A COUNCIL AND HELPING THROUGH A TRANSITION.

AND, UH, THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD, I BELIEVE IS A TIMEFRAME THAT EVEN IF WE GO THE LONG ROUTE OF AN RFP AND A NATIONWIDE SEARCH, I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE A NEW CITY MANAGER IN PLACE WITHIN THAT SIX MONTHS.

AND THEN ROB'S CONSULTATION AGREEMENT HAS GONE.

AND BY THAT TIME, I WOULD ASSUME SCOTT IS CERTAINLY UP TO SPEED WITH ALL THOSE THINGS.

AND SCOTT HAS SAID HIS PREFERENCE IS TO MAINTAIN BEING THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UM, WOULD THEN BE BEING A, EVEN IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO ASSIST THE NEW CITY MANAGER.

WHO'S GOING TO BE HERE KIND OF BRAND NEW.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT THAT TRANSITION PERIOD, IT REALLY IS HARD.

IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO THINK THAT, THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE ON THE RIGHT PATH THAT YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I, I DO UNDERSTAND CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD AND I'VE READ PEOPLE ARE, ARE FRUSTRATING UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE MONEY, RIGHT.

THAT THE, THE AGREEMENT.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK USING THE TERM SEVERANCE PACKAGE HAS PROBABLY GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE UP IN ARMS THINKING THAT, OH, WE JUST PAID HIM MONEY TO GO AWAY BECAUSE THAT'S TECHNICALLY WHAT A SEVERANCE PACKAGE IS.

HERE'S WHAT YOUR EMPLOYER IS SAYING.

NOPE, GO, WE DON'T NEED YOU.

SO I JUST, I THINK IT WAS VERY RESPONSIBLE TO CALL IT A SEVERANCE PACKAGE, KNOWING THAT A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED.

SO IT'S NOT A SEVERANCE PACKAGE WHEN YOU'VE AGREED TO CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY TO DO MORE WORK.

AND, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT, THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

SO I THINK, I THINK ROB IS I PERSONALLY THAT ROB HAS WORTH THE MONEY.

I KNOW WHAT HIS RELATIONSHIPS ARE WITH THE, UM, WITH THE PEOPLE AND THE CONTRACTS AND THINGS THAT WERE IN PLACE THAT WE WERE DOING.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I MEAN, I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OR I CAN JUST DEFER TO SCOTT TO FIND OUT WHAT SCOTT MAY NEED, ROB'S HELP WITH.

I, I HAVE ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO SAY BECAUSE, WELL, TWO ACTUALLY YOU MENTIONED, UM, ROB, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO THE, UM, CITIZENS, SOMETHING ABOUT MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS THAT ROB WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING, UM, I GUESS BEDS FOR, FOR THE CITY.

MY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THOSE CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED TO MINORITY CONTRACTORS OR MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES? UM, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, MY HOPE IS THAT THAT'S ALWAYS FRONT OF MIND, UM, THAT WE NEED A CITY MANAGER THAT WILL REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE THAT WILL REPRESENT ALL BUSINESSES THAT WILL REPRESENT ALL CITIZENS AND NOT JUST THOSE THAT, UM, WE FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO SUPPORT.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, AND YOU'RE GONNA KEEP HEARING ME SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEVELOP THAT MINDSET WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW WE'RE GOING TO REALLY GROW OUR CITY, IT'S GOING TO BE WITH THE MINDSET THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED, ALL BUSINESSES, ALL PEOPLE, UM, AND THAT'S HOW THIS CITY IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW.

UM, AND THE FINAL THING THAT I WILL SAY, I SAT IN OUR MEETING FOR CULTURE AND DIVERSITY.

I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONTINUE TO LET YOUR INTEGRITY GUIDE YOU.

UM, IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR, DON'T VOTE, ASK QUESTIONS.

UM, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, I KNOW SOMETIMES PEOPLE, I, MYSELF EVEN HAVE FELT COMPELLED TO VOTE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SEEM LIKE YOU'RE, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEEM LIKE YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN, BUT SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN.

IF IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT ON THE INSIDE, YOU'RE NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR.

WE ELECTED YOU ALL.

AND WE EXPECT THAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO ALWAYS LEAD WITH INTEGRITY, OPEN, HONEST, AND TRANSPARENT.

YOU KNOW, WE SAY THAT, BUT WE HAVE TO LIVE THAT WE HAVE TO MEAN THAT.

AND SO THAT, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE

[01:05:01]

THAT WHAT YOU DO.

IT MEANS A LOT.

UM, PEOPLE THINK YOU GUYS ARE GETTING WEALTHY SITTING ON THAT DIETS.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT TRUE.

NOPE.

UM, AND YOU PROBABLY DON'T HEAR ENOUGH THAT YOU ARE APPRECIATED, BUT, BUT YOU ARE.

SO MAYOR GORE, THANK YOU.

I KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH GLENN AND ALL OF YOU ALL, I MEAN, WHAT YOU DO IS APPRECIATE IT, BUT PLEASE LEAD WITH INTEGRITY AND ALL THAT STUFF.

THINKING OF SOMEONE I APPRECIATE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.

SO, UM, IF SO WHEN I SAID CONTRACTS, SO IT KIND OF, IN MY STATEMENT, I WAS, UM, WHAT ABOUT SOME OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS THAT, UH, ROB WAS INVOLVED IN? WE HAVE LOTS OF PROPERTY.

I THINK TOTALLING PROBABLY ABOUT SOMEONE I EVER WOULD HAVE MAYBE 11 TO $12 MILLION WORTH OF PROPERTY THAT THIS CITY HAS PURCHASED, UM, PROB WAS INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATING THOSE CONTRACTS, KNOWING WHAT OUR OVERALL ECONOMIC, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF PROJECTS UNDER A TRANSFORMATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND, AND ROB IS INVOLVED IN THOSE, I WILL SAY MOST OF THE TIME.

AND IF ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO ADDRESS IT AT ANY TIME, ANY TIME THAT THE CITY MANAGER COMES BACK, WHEN WE GO OUT TO BID FOR SOMETHING ALWAYS IN THE PACKET, WHAT WE SEE ARE THE BITS.

AND WE SEE THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR, WHERE WE ARE NOTIFIED.

WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MINORITY ON BUSINESS.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

AND UNLESS THIS COUNCIL WOULD CHOOSE TO MAKE A POLICY THAT SAYS, UH, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN JUST ONLY THE LOWEST, MOST QUALIFIED BID, BUT THE LOWEST, MOST QUALIFIED BID, INCLUDING MINORITY CONTRACTORS, THEN AT LEAST TO THIS POINT, PRICE HAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT BEN, WHAT WE ALL VOTE ON, UH, OR WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY VOTE ON HAS ALWAYS COME DOWN TO WHO IS, WHO IS THE LOWEST BID.

I HAVE NO ISSUES IF, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT OR KNOW AND HAVE THAT PART OF OUR PROCESS, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES, THEN I THINK THAT'S A POLICY CERTAINLY THAT THIS COUNCIL COULD GET INVOLVED IN, UM, AND, AND MAKE THAT REQUEST.

SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING BUSINESS WITH, BUT IN OUR PACKETS, WHAT WE SEE PRIOR TO A BID, UH, OR, OR A VOTE REGARDING TO APPROVE A CONTRACT, TYPICALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR AND WHAT THEIR BID WAS.

AND THEN WE GET AN EXPLANATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE VOTE AND THE DISCUSSION ITEM, UH, BEFORE EMOTION IS MADE.

UH, WHEN WE TELL HER, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT AT THE WORK SESSION BEFORE IT'S DECIDED TO MOVE THAT ON TO THE COUNCIL MEETING, UM, WE GET THE DETAILS AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, IF WE'VE USED THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE, IF WE WERE WAVING AS A COMPETITIVE BID, BECAUSE THIS WAS A SPECIAL SERVICE THAT QUALIFIED WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO A COMPETITIVE BID, WE COULD TALK ABOUT ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT I WILL ADMIT, I'VE NEVER LOOKED AT A BID WHERE I'VE SEEN, UM, IS THIS DONE BY, OR IS THIS BID BY MINORITY CONTRACT? WE'VE NEVER, WE'VE NEVER ASKED FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT, UM, I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH US ADDRESSING MOVING FORWARD AND CHANGING POLICY IF WE NEED TO.

AND YES, OF COURSE, PLEASE DO.

AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THAT GETS TO THE TOPIC OF EQUITY.

AND I THINK NANCY BIRDS MENTIONED THAT AT ONE MEETING, UM, EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THE BED OR TO THE RFQ OR RFP OR WHATEVER, BUT WHEN WE TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR MINORITY OWNED CONTRACTORS OR, UM, BUSINESSES, IT'S THE EQUITY PIECE, IT'S THE EQUITY LENS.

AND I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE POLICY, NOT JUST WITH BIDDING, BUT WITH HIRING AS WELL.

WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT EXTRA LANGUAGE BECAUSE THEN WE MOVE FROM A QUALITY TO EQUITY.

AND I, AND I WOULD ASK THIS COUNCIL, CERTAINLY TO, TO BE AWARE OF THAT AND TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, ASKING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BIDS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BROUGHT BACK TO US AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES, PROBLEMS WITH THAT WHATSOEVER.

AS LONG AS THIS COUNCIL IS WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE SITUATION VERY WELL COULD ARISE.

THERE MIGHT BE A MINORITY CONTRACTOR, THAT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE, UH, TO INSTALL THE SIDEWALKS.

SO THEN THAT COMES DOWN TO THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS AS FIDUCIARIES TO THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR TAX DOLLARS.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT REALLY HAS TO BE WEIGHED OUT AND CERTAINLY OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

WHEN WE GET THOSE BIDS BACK, IF WE KNOW WE'RE, THERE'S A MINORITY CONTRACTOR THAT HAS MADE A BID, BUT

[01:10:01]

BUT I AM CERTAINLY ALL FOR EXPRESSING OUR DESIRE TO WORK WITH MINORITY CONTRACTORS AND BUSINESS OWNERS.

ABSOLUTELY.

HOW MANY I WAS GOING THERE.

I WAS HANDED ONE MORE.

UH, WELL, UH, OKAY.

OH, NO.

SO GO AHEAD.

AND THEN I'LL, I'LL DO THIS ONE AT THE END WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED MS. LINDA WARREN, PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS PUBLIC AND GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

OF COURSE.

UM, THIS IS AN EMPLOYEE MATTER.

WAS THERE EVER A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DONE ON THIS EMPLOYEE? YES.

AND W AND WAS THE EMPLOYEE AWARE IN ADVANCE THAT THEY WERE NOT PERFORMING UP TO COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS? YES, I'LL TAKE THAT.

SO FOR THE LAST, UM, THERE HAS BEEN EVALUATIONS DONE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS LAST YEAR.

UH, EVERYONE ON COUNCIL COMPLETED THAT EXCEPT FOR MR. SHAW.

THEN LAST YEAR, I'VE ASKED FOR EVALUATIONS THAT WERE GOING TO BE DUE THE 5TH OF MARCH OF THIS YEAR.

AND, UM, NO ONE HAD COMPLETED, WELL, I TAKE THAT BACK.

MR. LYONS AND MRS. BAKER WERE THE TWO THAT HAD SUBMITTED THOSE TO ME.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU MY ROLE AS THE MAYOR IS KIND OF THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE CITY STAFF AND THE COUNCIL, UH, MR. SCHIRMER.

AND I SPOKE PROBABLY, WELL, IF NOT EVERY DAY, UH, FOUR TIMES A WEEK AND MULTIPLE TIMES, UH, I HAD HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SCHOMER OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS REGARDING ISSUES THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAVE VOICED TO ME FRUSTRATIONS THEY'VE VOICED TO ME OVER THAT TIME PERIOD.

SO, YES, MR. MR. SHELMAR KNEW THAT THEY WERE ISSUES THAT HE NEEDED TO ADDRESS.

AND ALL I SAY IS THAT, UM, WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS TIME FOR A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

WELL, I THINK YOUR CITIZENS, US, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE SPENDING MONEY.

LIKE YOU CAN PRINT IT IN THE BACK ROOM.

AND I THINK THIS ONE THERE'S BEEN AN SOMETHING BEHIND MONEY SPENT WHEN IT'S REAL ESTATE.

NOW WE'RE POURING MONEY INTO SOMETHING WHICH IS CONTRACT SAYS WITH THE 30 DAY NOTICE THAT HE WAS NOT MEETING WHATEVER AND GIVEN 30 DAYS TO RECTIFY IT, THEN YOU COULD HAVE TERMINATED WITHOUT CAUSE.

AND, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AND WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THERE ARE, THERE ARE REASONS, UM, THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR EXPRESSED DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION AS TO WHY THAT REALLY WOULD NOT BE THE CORRECT WAY TO GO, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER.

AND AGAIN, WITH, UH, I'M JUST, I'M NOT GOING TO GET IN SPECIFIC IN TWO SPECIFIC REASONS, BUT ALL I CAN, ALL I CAN DO IS EXPRESS TO EVERYBODY AND, AND HOPE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT WE'RE BEING GENERALLY HONEST.

WHEN WE SAY THIS, WHEN WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE THREE OPTIONS WERE WITH.

CAUSE WITHOUT CAUSE OR RESIGNATION, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FINANCIAL MATTERS OF THE CITY, THE RESIGNATION, THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE GOT WAS DEEP, SINGLE BEST OPTION FOR THE CITY.

AND I WAS IN PURCHASING MANAGEMENT MANY YEARS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU, NUMBERS CAN BE MADE TO MAKE THE PICTURE YOU WANT IT AND THE MESSAGE YOU WANT IT TO HAVE.

AND YOU CAN MAKE SOMETHING LOOK VERY BAD.

I'VE HAD VENDORS DO THAT TO YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT YOU TO.

AND IT TAKES A DEEP DIVE INTO THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE WHAT TRULY IS THE BEST.

AND I DON'T THINK 20 MINUTES IN THE BACKROOM PROBABLY GAVE PEOPLE A DEEP DIVE INTO THOSE NUMBERS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU, I HEAR FROM CITIZENS TOO.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THE SITUATION WAS SO BAD, IT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN THIS QUICKLY.

AND NOW WE'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY.

IT HAS CAST A SHADOW OVER OUR COUNCIL OVER OUR CITY AND IT LOOKS BAD AND WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A CITY THAT LOOKS BAD.

WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A CITY WHERE YOU'VE GOT 50 PEOPLE SHARING A DAYTON DAILY NEWS ARTICLE OR A W H I L BROADCAST ABOUT HUBER HEIGHTS.

WE THOUGHT WE HAD GOTTEN PAST

[01:15:01]

THAT.

I DID TOO.

AND, AND THAT'S AND IT'S, AND I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE BLOWING UP, UH, MR. OTTO'S PHONE ONLY.

IT WASN'T BECAUSE WHAT I SAW ANYTHING HE HAD DONE.

AND I, AND I'VE BEEN PRETTY BRUTAL WITH HIM ABOUT HOW STUPID, I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DONE ARE, AND MAYBE IF WE COULD HAVE MORE EXPLANATION AND MORE TRANSPARENCY AND LESS IN THE BACK ROOM, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT RIGHT NOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN EXECUTED.

THERE'S NO GOING BACK.

WE'RE STUCK WITH THIS.

SO GOING FORWARD, THE PEOPLE WANT OUR CITY MANAGER LIVING IN THE CITY.

AND IF YOU CHECK AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE CONTRACT TO BEGIN WITH IT IS LEGAL TO REQUIRE THAT THEY LIVE IN THE CITY.

AND I THINK, AND I, AND I HOPE I HOPE YOU AT WORK HERE.

AND WE'RE HEARING MY WORDS.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE TO THIS COUNCIL.

THE CITY, THE COUNTY, THE RESIDENTS DID MORE THAN THAT.

WE VOTED FOR IT.

WE'VE SPOKEN.

SO IF CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T HEAR IT, YOU BETTER WATCH OUT BECAUSE WE CAN SPEAK AT THE BALLOT.

AGAIN.

WE WANT OUR CITY MANAGER WITH SKIN IN THE GAME.

WE WANT BETTER FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY.

WE WANT GUYS, IF YOU DIDN'T DO AN EVALUATION, SHAME ON YOU, ALL OF YOU, IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH HIM.

AND IF HE, IF IT WASN'T DOCUMENTED, CONVERSATIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT IN HR, YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT THE PROBLEMS THAT SOMEONE IS HAVING.

YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT THE FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS WITH THEM, AND THEN YOU CAN TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE.

AND WHAT'S OUR SUCCESSION PLAN.

WHAT IF HE DROPPED DEAD DRIVING HOME AT NIGHT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE SOMEONE FOR SCOTT TO, TO, UH, CONSULT WITH WHAT IS OUR SUCCESSION PLAN.

WHAT'S OUR BACKUP PLAN.

WE'RE TOO BIG OF A CITY TO JUST BE FLYING BY THE SEAT OF OUR PANTS.

OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND I CAN TELL YOU AGAIN, BEING IN CHARGE OF PURCHASING FOR MULTI-MILLION MULTI-MILLION MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES, I CAN TELL IT WAS ALL DONE WITH THE PLAN THAT I WAS GOING TO DIE ON THE WAY HOME THAT NIGHT.

AND THE COMPANY GOES ON, THE CITY GOES ON, REGARDLESS OF WHO OUR EMPLOYEE IS, WHO OUR CITY MANAGER IS, BUT WE WANT A CITY MANAGER IN THE CITY.

I THINK WE NEED A BACKUP PLAN.

WE NEED A SUCCESSION PLAN SO THAT IF THEY DO DROP DEAD OR THEY GET A WILD PAIR AND SAY, YOU'RE THE WORST THINGS THAT EVER HAPPENED.

AND I'M LEAVING THAT WE'RE NOT STANDING HERE NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO.

EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED.

THE ASSISTANT MANAGER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THOSE MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SHOULD FLOW EQUALLY TO ALL CITY REP UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF CALLING AND SAYING, I DIDN'T KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T KNOW? ARE YOU NOT? SO CERTAIN PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT PEOPLE WHO ARE OF A QUALITY THAT WE NEED TO KNOW.

WE NEED TO GET OUR ACT TOGETHER IN THE CITY AND NOT BE A PART OF THE LATENT DAILY NEWS, WHO I O W D T N.

AND WE START, NEED TO START BEHAVING LIKE THE PROFESSIONALS THAT I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE, AND THAT OUR CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE.

AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

I HEARD NOTHING ABOUT INCLUDING THE MEDICAL BENEFITS.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE ABOUT THE ISSUES IN THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS AND THE ISRAELI BLOG POSTS AND THE A, AND THE NEWS ARTICLES AND THE FIVE 30 NEWS.

I, I, I, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

AND, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I HAD NO PART IN THAT I WAS MISQUOTED SEVERAL TIMES OVER SOCIAL MEDIA OF SOMETHING THAT I HAD SAID.

UM, AND I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SPEAK TO ANYBODY FROM ANY NEWS AGENCY OTHER THAN THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS AND CHANNEL TWO SENT ME AN EMAIL.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME DURING THE DAY I WORKED DURING THE DAY, UH, TO JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, HOLD ON CLASS, LET ME RUN IN THE HALLWAY AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH, WITH IN A NEWS INTERVIEW.

I RESPONDED TO THE EMAIL.

SO I HAVE THE EMAILS SEVEN FROM MY PUBLIC EMAIL TO THE NEW STATION AND TO THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS.

ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEARCH FOR AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

I HAVE BEEN MISQUOTED SEVERAL, SEVERAL TIMES SINCE, UH, I SENT THAT EMAIL, UH, BY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.

AND THOSE ARE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT ANYBODY CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO THE NEWS MEDIA.

SO, SO I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE ABOUT SEEING OUR NAME, UH, IN THE NEWS IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.

I AGREE WITH YOU 1000000%, BUT TERMINATING OUR CITY MANAGER WITH THE WAY IT WAS DONE, EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I MEAN, I HAD TO LISTEN TWICE TO HEAR THE CONSULTATION PART BECAUSE REMEMBER 99% OF THE PEOPLE LISTENING ARE LISTENING ONLINE TO HEAR THAT THERE WAS A CONSULTATION.

[01:20:01]

SO THE MORE OPEN TRANSPARENT YOU GUYS ARE HERE, THE LESS THAT ANYONE CAN MISQUOTE ANYONE ELSE, UH, BY JUST GETTING IT OUT AND LETTING US HEAR IT.

AND I, I DO AGREE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

JUST THE ONE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO THIS IS, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A NAME, BUT IT IS AN EMAIL THAT SAYS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE FORMER CITY MANAGER WOULD BE CONSULTING ABOUT THAT WARRANTS A PAYMENT OF $150,000.

IF MR. SCHUMER IS RESIGNING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS MAKES SENSE FINANCIALLY FOR THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, I HAVE TO BE ON A STRICT BUDGET TO AFFORD THE PROPERTY TAX HIKE.

I JUST RECEIVED SEEING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY GOING OUT FOR CONSULTING FEE MAKES ME RETHINK THAT THIS IS NOT THE AREA I SHOULD CONTINUE LIVING IN.

SO WITH THAT COMMENT, I WOULD, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE $150,000 IS ACTUALLY $109,000 BASED ON THE $41,000 OF MR. SCHUMER'S ACCRUED VACATION THAT WAS ENTITLED TO HIM REGARDLESS OF HOW HE SEPARATED.

UM, SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD TIME THEN TO, JUST TO TALK TO, TO MR. FALKOWSKI ABOUT A CONSULTING AGREEMENT, AND I'M GOING TO SAY, WELL, I BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

AND, UM, AND WHILE THEY FELT THAT NECESSARY TO HAVE MR. SCHOMER, UH, HERE AND AVAILABLE TO SCOTT, RATHER THAN TERMINATING WITHOUT CAUSE AND PAYING MORE MONEY AND NOT HAVING MR. SCHUMER AVAILABLE.

LET MR. MCCALSKY, IF YOU WOULD, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

THANKS.

WAS ABOUT AND WHAT THE CITY MANAGER'S ROLE IS IN THIS, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THE POLICE ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY ROLE, THAT KIND OF THING, UM, DEVELOPMENTS, UH, THERE ARE THINGS THAT COME UP, THERE'S JUST, THEY SAID JUST EVEN IN THE PAST WEEK, UM, HE WAS CONTACTED BY, UH, SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENTS THAT HE'S TALKED TO IN THE PAST AND HE IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME AND TOLD ME, HERE IS THE SUM OF THIS.

AND, UH, FIRST I LIKE TO ONE SAY I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS, UH, REGARDING ME, UM, THAT I'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT AND LAST WEEK.

I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENTS HAS ALREADY REAPED BENEFITS FOR ME, WHICH I BELIEVE REAPS BENEFITS FOR THE CITY.

UM, AS I AM TRANSITIONING INTO THIS POSITION, UM, SOMETHING WAS SAID EARLIER ABOUT, UM, MR. SCHOMER COMING IN ON LAST TUESDAY AND, UH, HIS INTEGRITY IS THE RESPECT I HAVE FOR HIM IS, YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT I GET OUT OF, UM, CONSULTING WITH MR. SHOWMAN.

HE SAT DOWN WITH ME FOR SEVERAL HOURS GOING OVER, THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THE CITY, THINGS THAT HE HAS KNOWLEDGE WITH THAT, UM, JUST ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, THAT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A, HEY, LET ME WRITE EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY DOWN SO I CAN PASS ON TO THE NEXT PERSON, UM, JUST IN CASE.

SO I KNOW BIG PICTURE ITEMS OF CERTAIN THINGS, BUT, UM, THERE IS THAT WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE THAT MR SCHOMER HAS THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO TAP INTO, UM, BECAUSE ON ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW YET.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE THINGS THAT COME UP THAT ARE GOING TO BE SURPRISES AND I'LL HANDLE THEM.

BUT IF I HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHECK WITH SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN THROUGH THAT BEFORE, THAT MAY HAVE SOME PIECE OF THAT, IT MAKES IT GO SMOOTHER.

SO ALREADY, UM, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, ONE OF THE TOP THINGS IS THE ROSE MUSIC CENTER.

UM, LAST YEAR WE DID NOT HAVE A CONCERT, UH, BECAUSE OF COVID.

SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND PROPER, AND WE ARE MOVING IN THAT RIGHT DIRECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SUCCESSFUL AS SOON AS WE ARE ABLE TO.

UM, SO MR. SCHOMER HAS ALL THOSE CONTACTS AND HAS DEALT DAY-TO-DAY WITH THAT FROM ITS INCEPTION.

UH, THERE'S A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE THERE THAT IS, UH, JUST IMMENSE.

UM, YOU MENTIONED TRI-CITIES, THAT'S OUR, UH, SANITARY SEWER OR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT.

THERE ARE THINGS GOING ON THERE RIGHT NOW THAT, UH, HE HAS TAKEN THE LEAD ON.

SO HE IS THE LEAD ON, UH, NEGOTIATING NEW CONTRACTS OUT THERE.

AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF, UM, GOING THROUGH, UM, GETTING READY TO START INTERVIEWS FOR A NEW, UH, GENERAL MANAGER OVER THERE.

SO THERE IS THAT KNOWLEDGE THERE, AND THAT'S A PIECE THAT, UH, HE HAS BEEN, UM, DEFINITELY BIG INTO THAT, UH, I WILL MOVE INTO, BUT, UH, AS I SAID, UM, GETTING THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BEING ABLE TO GET THOSE, UH, SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, YEAH, EVEN AS JUST TODAY, UM, WE ARE GOING THROUGH OUR KALIYA ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I'VE NEVER HAD ANY REASON TO BE A PART OF THAT, UM, IN MY PREVIOUS POSITION.

SO SAT DOWN AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THAT PROCESS

[01:25:01]

I WILL MAKE THAT INTRODUCTION TO YOU BECAUSE THIS PERSON'S NEVER MET YOU BEFORE AND SIT DOWN AND WE'LL GO THINGS THAT YOU WILL HELP WITH THOSE TRANSITIONS, UM, AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, RIGHT? PATTERSON, AIR FORCE BASE.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING HE HAS BEEN PART OF COMMITTEES, UM, WITH THEM ON SOME PLANNING TYPE THINGS AND SETTING UP SOME NEW STRATEGIES THERE THAT A LOT OF THAT, THOSE INTRODUCTIONS, THOSE CONTACTS, THOSE, UM, THAT KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, UM, PROCESS, UM, MR. SCHOMER IS A PROCESS GUY.

UM, I HAVE LEARNED ALREADY SO MUCH FROM HIM ON THAT AND WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO, UM, HELP AND LEARN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, UM, THAT CAN ONLY BE BENEFICIAL TO CONTINUE THAT GROWTH AND CONTINUE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO, UM, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE, THE, THE MAIN THINGS THAT THEY DON'T.

I HAVE SUCH AN IMMENSE RESPECT FOR MR. SCHOMER.

HE'S BEEN HERE FOR OVER 24 YEARS.

HE CAME UP A PATH THAT I LIKE TO SAY THAT I KIND OF FOLLOW AS WELL, UM, THAT HE DIDN'T COME IN HERE AS A, YOU KNOW, TRAINED TO BE A CITY MANAGER.

HE LEARNED THE CITY, HE GREW, UH, COMING UP THE RANKS AND LEARN THINGS, CAME THE POLICE CHIEF, UH, RAN A DEPARTMENT FROM THAT END AND THEN BECAME CITY MANAGER AND HAS REALLY HELPED THIS CITY BLOSSOM.

SO, UM, I I'M IN ALL OF SOME OF THE THINGS HE'S DONE AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE THINGS AND MOVING FORWARD.

THANKS, MR. MCCALSKY.

SO I HOPE THAT I'VE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE, THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY OUR RESIDENTS THAT WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND THE ONES THAT CAME THROUGH, UM, BY EMAIL.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN, UM, I'VE MOVED TO THE DISCUSSION PORTION BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION.

I WOULD OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION NOW TO, UH, ANYONE ON COUNCIL STRATO.

I'LL GLADLY START.

UM, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

UM, I'D LIKE TO START WITH, UM, QUESTION TWO, UH, JERRY, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED TO THE YOUNG LADY THERE IN THE GREEN THAT, UH, UH, THE CONTRACT FOR THE CITY MANAGER COULD BE CHANGED BY PARTY AGREEMENT, CORRECT? YES.

WHEN DID WE DO THAT? WE DECIDED TO ACCEPT A RESIGNATION IN EXCHANGE FOR $150,000 CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

ISSUES AND, AND, AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY.

UM, SO THERE WAS NO PRIOR DISCUSSION.

IT WAS JUST THIS, THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT DISCUSSED IN THIS 20 MINUTES, BUT A LOT OF IT, I DON'T RECALL APPARENTLY, UM, JERRY, HOW MUCH, UH, THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN A CONVERSATION, HOW MUCH WOULD IT HAVE COST THE CITY HAD WE, UH, TERMINATED WITHOUT? CAUSE I BELIEVE THE NUMBER WAS ROUGHLY 152, WHICH IS WHY WE SAID, OH, WELL, 150 AND NICE AND AROUND TERMINATE AND PROVIDE THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT WASN'T THE DISCUSSION.

UM, QUITE HONESTLY, THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME, SOME TALES TOLD IN MY OPINION, THIS DISCUSSION STARTED ON SATURDAY, MARCH 6TH.

UH, I WAS CONTACTED BY THE MAYOR AND ASKED TO COME TO CITY HALL FOR A QUICK DISCUSSION.

UH, HE HAD ASKED FOR A MEETING IN 15 MINUTES AND, UH, I, QUITE FRANKLY, I JUST COULDN'T BECAUSE I HAD TOO MUCH GOING ON WITH, UH, MY CHILDREN, ONE OF WHICH WE JUST MOVED OVER THE WEEKEND ON TO AUGUSTA GEORGIA TO HIS FIRST DUTY STATION, BUT, UH, I COULDN'T MAKE IT.

UM, MR. SHAWL WAS ALSO CONTACTED, SO HE DID, HE DID ATTEND AND, UH, AND HE FILLED ME IN AFTERWARDS.

LET ME KNOW, UM, WHAT WAS, WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF WHERE IT WAS GOING AND WHAT IT WAS ABOUT WAS TERMINATING RUPTURE.

UH, AT LEAST THAT WAS THE CRUX OF IT.

UM, THE BULK OF THE CONVERSATION.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THIS THING ALL STARTED.

AND I THINK, UH, MR. SEAN AND I WERE REACHED OUT TO, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, UH, 2016, 2017, YOU, WE KIND OF MADE IT KNOWN THAT WE HAD

[01:30:01]

UM, SOME CHANGES WERE MADE.

UM, I BELIEVE WE, WE ACTUALLY, UH, JERRY, THAT'S HOW YOU FOUND YOUR WAY INTO THAT SEAT BECAUSE WE MOVED TO, UH, RELEASE OUR OTHER ATTORNEY.

UM, AND WE DID THAT THROUGH, WE HAD PAPERWORK LEGISLATION, ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF IN FRONT OF US WHEN WE DID IT.

UM, AND TO THAT, I WOULD ASK, UM, UH, PRIOR TO OUR VOTE ON MONDAY EVENING WHERE WE PROVIDED, UH, MR. SHERMAN'S RESIGNATION, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU RECEIVED AS FAR AS I KNOW IT DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL TUESDAY, BUT WE KEEP HEARING THAT HE HAD RESIGNED, HE HAD RESIGNED, BUT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THAT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY.

AND THAT'S WHEN HE HAD DATED THAT LETTER.

THAT'S WHEN WE SAW THE LETTER.

BUT, BUT WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THAT WAS WHY THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE HE WAS RELEASED AND HE WOULD, THAT HE WILL RESIGN UPON THE INJURIES HE WOULD RESIGN.

SO CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD WITH MR. SCHOMER ABOUT HIS RESIGNATION.

I ASSUME THAT I'M ASSUMING.

LETTER SAID BETTER OPPORTUNITIES.

NOT BY ME, NOT BY ME.

UM, SO YEAH, ALL THE CONVERSATIONS UP TO BLEEDING UP TO MONDAY WERE CONCERNING HIS ASKING, NOT ASKING FOR HIS RESIGNATION.

I APOLOGIZE, BUT, UH, RELEASING HIM WITHOUT CAUSE.

AND THAT I THINK IS WHERE WE CAME WITH $150,000 NUMBER.

AND TO THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED ABOUT MY CONFUSION, MY CONFUSION, I WAS NOT CONFUSED MONDAY EVENING.

IT WAS MY, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING FULLY COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT WE WERE RELEASING THE CITY MANAGER WITHOUT CAUSE.

AND THIS 150,000 WAS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM FOR THAT.

UM, AND AGAIN, YOU SAY WE COULD HAVE CHANGED THE CONTRACT, BUT I DON'T RECALL CHANGING THE CONTRACT PRIOR TO THAT, THAT I DON'T RECALL THAT EVER OCCURRING AS A MATTER OF FACT.

UM, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

UM, IT WAS ALSO, IT'S ALSO MENTIONED IN THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT THAT CITY COUNCIL HAD WAIVED THE 30 DAY NOTICE AGREEMENT OR REQUIREMENT.

AND I DON'T RECALL US HAVING THAT EITHER WHEN WE, WE, WE REALLY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED NO READ AHEAD FOR WAIVING THE 30 DAY REQUIREMENT.

NO READ AHEAD FOR EVEN THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, UM, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MS. BAKER VERBALIZED OR DESIRE TO BE THE ONE WHO WAS THE FIRST ON THE MOTION, BUT SHE DID NOT VOICE A MOTION.

THE MAYOR VOICED WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE MOTION AND IT WAS JUST AGREED TO, AND FIRST AND SECOND, IT, UM, AGAIN, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS SO THAT WE COULD RELEASE THE CITY MANAGER.

NOT THAT HE WAS RESIGNING.

WE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THAT.

AND, UH, AGAIN, THIS WAS SPEARHEADED BY THE MAYOR, HIS RELEASE.

UM, SO, UM, AGAIN, BEAR WITH ME.

AND AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE COPIES OF THE CONTRACT OR THE RESIGNATION, NOTHING IN HAND PRIOR TO THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS MY BELIEF.

HE WAS GOING TO BE DISMISSED WITHOUT CAUSE WHICH MEANS WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REVIEW BECAUSE IT WAS, AGAIN, MY BELIEF THAT YOU WERE BEING INSTRUCTED TO TAKE CARE OF WHATEVER LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS WERE NEEDED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

AND THEN THAT WOULD COME BACK TO US FOR VOTE, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN, UM, TO THIS CONSULTATION AGREEMENT.

UM, AGAIN, IF, IF THERE WAS A TERMINATION, THE CONTRACT READS TERMINATED WITHOUT CAUSE WHEN IT CAME TO THAT, ROUGHLY 152,000 THAN ONE 50 MADE SENSE TO ME, A CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, A HUNDRED, 150,000 FOR SIX MONTHS BREAKS DOWN TO $25,000 A MONTH FOR, UM, I QUOTE, UH, UH, THIS THING THAT SAID, WHAT WAS IT, TWO FOR EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS, $25,000 A MONTH FOR EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT'LL PROBABLY BE POINTED OUT, BUT TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH FOR THAT IS ACTUALLY DOUBLE HIS SALARY, HIS NORMAL SALARY TO DO THAT AS A JOB ON A REGULAR BASIS, THAT SEEMS KIND OF EXTREME TO GET TWICE AS MUCH FOR THAT SAME, WELL, SAME OR LESS, LESS WORK, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS MOVING ON TO BETTER OPPORTUNITIES.

ACCORDING TO HIS, UH, RESIGNATION LETTER TO NOTE SOME CORRECTION, PLEASE IT'S THE ONE 50.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALCULATE AND BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, IT'S WHATEVER THAT IS MINUS THE $41,000, THAT WAS HIS MONEY.

ANYWAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALCULATE SIX OF AN AGREEMENT, AND THEN SECONDLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THE RESIGNATION

[01:35:01]

I THINK MR. SCHOMER CITED A NEW, NEW, PERSONAL OPPORTUNITY.

HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS LEAVING FOR ANOTHER JOB OR A DIFFERENT PROFESSION OR ANYTHING.

HE SAID HE WAS LEAVING FOR A NEW, I BELIEVE IT WAS A NEW PR, A NEW, A NEW PERSONAL OPPORTUNITY OR SOMETHING TO THAT, TO THAT NATURE.

SO IF WE'RE WANTING TO DISCUSS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR WHAT WAS WHAT'S WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE.

OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH.

THAT'S SIMPLY INACCURATE JERRY.

I WILL QUOTE US A NEW OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN OPENED TO ME.

SO WE'LL GO WITH THAT.

UM, WHEREAS THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED.

THIS WAS WITHIN THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT, WHEREAS THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RESIGNATION OF EMPLOYMENT SHALL BE TUESDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2021.

WHEN DID WE AGREE TO THAT? WHEN, WHEN DID WE HAVE THE MEETING? WHEN DID COUNCIL AGREE TO THAT? UM, WHEN WAS THAT DATE CHOSEN? UH, AGAIN, UH, I SAW NOTHING OF IT UNTIL THE NINTH, WHEN THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED, DEFER TO MR. MCLAUGHLIN THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT I WOULD GET HIS RESIGNATION AND HAVING SIGNED THE AGREEMENT.

AND THAT WAS DONE THE NEXT DAY.

I SEE.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LET, LET ME, LET ME ASK THIS.

UM, WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE, UH, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF VIOLATING EXECUTIVE SESSION SANCTIONED BY COUNCIL? SO, UH, POSSIBLY IF THERE WAS, UH, THE, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, WE COULD, UH, CENTER SOMEONE.

OH NO, NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

BUT YOU GET SENT.

SURE.

WELL, I'M GOING TO, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT IN THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE DID NOT DISCUSS HIM RESIGNING.

THE DISCUSSION WAS GEARED TOWARDS US RELEASING HIM.

I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S, AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME TO THAT NUMBER BECAUSE YOU DISCUSS THAT 152.

THAT'S HOW I KNEW IT WAS ROUGHLY ONE 52.

YOU WERE AT DOING THE MATH ON THE CONTRACT, WHICH STATES WE HAVE TO PAY HIM THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, AND THIS.

IF WE RELEASE WITHOUT COSTS, WHICH WOULD BE EQUATED TO ROUGHLY ONE 52, WHICH IS WHY WE SAID WE WOULD OFFER ROUGHLY WE WOULD OFFER THAT ONE 50.

UM, COULD I ASK A QUESTION PLEASE? SURE.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EACH ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION, HOW THEY REMEMBER THAT IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IF THEY, UH, THAT WE DISCUSSED, UH, A RESIGNATION VERSUS WITHOUT, CAUSE I WOULD SPEAK FIRST AND SAY WHAT I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION BEING IN TERMS OF WITHOUT CAUSE WAS BECAUSE IN FACT, I HAD ASKED MR. MCDONALD TO GET WITH THE HR DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE AT THE REQUEST OF MR. SHAW FROM OUR SATURDAY MEETING, MR. SHAW IS THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED TO ME THAT HE HAD MR. SCHUMER'S CONTRACT AT HOME ON HIS COMPUTER.

UH, BUT HE WASN'T SURE WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT HE KNEW IT WAS PROBABLY GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY.

SO I, BEFORE WE LEFT THAT MEETING, I TOLD MR. SHAW, I WOULD, THEN I WOULD GET WITH THE, UH, WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR AND HAVE HIM REVIEW WHAT THE CONTRACT WAS WITH THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WAS, AND THEN REPORT THAT INFORMATION BACK TO COUNCIL, WHICH HE DID.

AND THAT'S WHAT HE WAS GOING OVER.

UM, MR. MR. HILL, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSING IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, PLEASE? WE DISCUSSED SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE RELEASE OF MR. SCHOMER AND ALSO THE RESIGNATION.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT NUMBERS AND YEAH.

AND, UM, HOW THOSE NUMBERS ALMOST MET IT UP, BUT, UM, BUT THAT ONE WOULD ACTUALLY THE WORST FOR THE CITY, BUT IT DEFINITELY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE RESIGNATION.

THE SESSION UNTIL THAT'S DONE.

I REMEMBER THAT MR. LYONS, UH, WOULD YOU MIND PINING ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? UH, YES, I WOULD MAKE HER AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE THE PLAY NOW THAT SINCE YOU'VE EVOLVED INFORMATION IN SECULAR SESSION, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE THE DISCUSSION, UM, WE HAVE DISABILITIES COUNCIL TO, UH, VOTE IN IX, NOT EXPOSED.

THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, LOOKING FOR ZONES TO JD, UM, TO DEVOTE THE CONVERSATIONS AND EXECUTIVE SESSION.

GARY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT ON NOT TALKING FROM

[01:40:01]

THERE'S NO WAY MRS. BERG.

I REMEMBER AS YOU STATED, AND AS ANDY STATED, AND THAT, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT A RESIGNATION THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE THAT ROB WAS GOING TO SIGN IT, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE THE NEXT DAY MS. BAKER.

I PREFER NOT TO DISCUSS EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR.

BUT IF WE HAVE TO DEPRESS THE WORLD, IT WAS ABOUT A RESIGNATION.

WE DISCUSSED DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WHAT THEY WOULD COST.

THANK YOU, MR. CAMPBELL.

I REMEMBER JERRY GIVING US OPTIONS FOR CAUSE WITHOUT CAUSE, AND THEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF ROB'S.

MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES, PLEASE.

JERRY OR TONY, COULD YOU READ THE MOTION THAT WE VOTED ON? DOES SOMEBODY HAVE THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I COULD PARAPHRASE.

COULD YOU READ IT THEN? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MOTION ON MONDAY THE EIGHTH AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

YES, I READ, I READ THAT I'D WATCHED THIS VIDEO SEVERAL TIMES SO I COULD TYPE IT OUT BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO LOOK FOR THAT WORD SEVERANCE IN THERE AND IT WASN'T.

THIS IS, THIS IS MR. GORE OR MR. MAYOR.

UH, PARDON THE IMPERSONATION.

IT'S NOT GONNA BE GREAT.

QUIET.

IT IS NOW SEVEN 45 AND WE HAVE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND BASED ON THE DISCUSSION, I WOULD HAVE A, UH, ENTERTAIN, A MOTION TO DIRECT A CITY LAW DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A RESIGNATION AND CONSULTATION AGREEMENT.

LET CITY MANAGER ROBERT SCHUMER FOR A TOTAL OF 150,000 FOR THAT AGREEMENT.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I REMEMBER THAT BEING ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

I REMEMBERED THINKING MR. CAMPBELL, MR. SHAW.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY GREAT.

UM, YEAH, I CLEARLY REMEMBER, UH, AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL AS OUR SATURDAY MEETING, UM, THAT, UH, WE WERE, UM, UH, ESSENTIALLY, UH, RELEASING, UH, THE CITY MANAGER, UH, FIRING, RELEASING.

YOU CAN CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WISH.

UM, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE OF DISCUSSION FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR, UH, WITH THE NUMBERS THAT I WAS UNDER, THE IMPRESSION I WAS GOING TO BE GETTING, AND I'LL GO TO THAT.

AND, AND MY, MY SEGMENT HERE SOON, UM, ADDITIONALLY DISCUSSIONS OF, UM, UH, WITH, OR WITHOUT CAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAD CAUSED, UM, UH, UH, MAYOR, I BELIEVE YOUR DECISION TO, UM, UH, IN YOUR COMMENTS, UH, GOING DIFFERENT DIRECTION, UM, WAS DISCUSSED, UM, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS NOT YOUR FIRST TIME YOU'VE HAD THESE, THESE FEELINGS.

UH, IT WAS ALSO, UH, DISCUSSED, I BELIEVE, UM, REGARDING, UH, THE PREVIOUS WORK SESSION ON MARCH 2ND.

UM, AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN MR. OTTO, UH, AND MR. CAMPBELL ASKED THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER QUESTION, UM, IT WAS THE LETTER DATED, UM, ON OUR SATURDAY MEETING, UM, UH, THAT, UH, FALSE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

UM, UH, MR. OTTO HAD CORRECTED THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER THAT FALSE INFORMATION HAD THEN BEEN PROVIDED.

UM, AND YOU HAD DECLARED THAT YOU HAD BEEN FED UP.

THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION.

MR. WEBB, THANK YOU.

MA'AM UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU HERE ARE HERE TONIGHT, JUST TO CLARIFY THERE VERY SPECIFIC REASONS WHY WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE CAN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON, WELL, ONE OF THOSE REASONS IS PERSONNEL MATTERS.

THIS WAS A PERSONAL MATTER OF ONE OF THE THREE EMPLOYEES THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS DIRECT SUPERVISION OR LEGITIMATE REASON TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WHEN WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE LAW DIRECTOR WAS THERE.

WE DISCUSSED PARTING WAYS WITH ROB SHOWMAN.

I'M HEARING TERMS LIKE, UM, SEPARATION AGREEMENT OR WHAT HAPPENED.

NO, WE DISCUSSED AS IN ANY CORPORATION WITH A CEO, WE DISCUSSED PARTING WAYS WITH ROB SHOMER.

WHAT WAS THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY TO DO THE BEST USE OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS? SO WHEN WE DISCUSSED THAT PARTYING WAYS, THE WORD RESIGNATION WAS USED AS WAS A TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE TERMINATION WITH COSTS.

AND IN EACH CASE, WE ROUND ROBIN IN THE BACK ROOM THERE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS

[01:45:01]

INTERNET BASED AS WELL.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS.

WE DISCUSSED WHAT'S THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE CITY TO TAKE RESIGNATION SEPARATION.

UM, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS THE BEST FOR THE CITY AND THE CONSULTING PART OF IT? I WAS CLEAR ON BECAUSE IF ANYONE HEARD MY INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL 22, YOU HEARD ME SAY, WE NEED ROPS ON THE RIGHT NOW, THE MAN WHO HAS TAKEN THE INTERIM POSITION NEEDS ROB SHOMER RIGHT NOW.

SO THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNCLEAR THING AS WE LEFT THAT MEETING, THE CITY IS PARTING WAYS WITH ROB SHOMER BECAUSE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO IN, BUT ROB SHOMER HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB FOR US, AND HE IS VERY VALUABLE TO THE CITY GOING FORWARD.

SO I'VE PROBABLY SPOKEN TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT WENT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION, BECAUSE THIS IS A PERSONNEL MATTER BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND OUR EMPLOYEE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE WASN'T A MISUNDERSTANDING COMING OUT OF THAT MEETING THE RESOLUTION THAT WE READ, THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE ABSOLUTELY SAYS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO.

IF ANYONE WAS ON CLEAR ON THAT, I'M SORRY, BUT IT WAS NOT UNCLEAR TO ME.

I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING REAL QUICK.

I DON'T WANT TO GO OFF, BUT I'M NOT FINISHED MR. RED, HOLD ON.

SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE, I AM NOT, NOT COMFORTABLE WITH GOING IN THE DETAIL ABOUT EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THIS WILL JUST SHOW UP.

SO I JUST WANTED TO PULL COUNSEL REGARDING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TOOK PLACE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OR WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD, CERTAINLY ONCE, UM, COUNSEL FASCIST OR MR. MR. OTTO FINISHES OR WHOEVER ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK.

CERTAINLY YOU'LL HAVE YOUR TIME.

SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO GO ON.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT'S VERY UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION DISCUSSING WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ME.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW AND SEE THAT, UH, OUT OF ALL EIGHT COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THAT, UH, ONE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK, BUT THE OTHER FIVE CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD VERY CLEARLY WHAT WE WERE DOING, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR. RANDO, APPARENTLY AND MR. SHAW.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POLLING EVERYBODY.

I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

IT SPEAKS TO MY POINT.

UM, LET ME ASK AGAIN, JERRY, WHEN WAS IT? WE RECEIVED THAT RESIGNATION OR WE KNEW HE WAS RESIGNING BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU STATED MONDAY NIGHT WAS WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT HE WAS RESIGNING CORRECTLY, CORRECT? MONDAY NIGHT WE WERE TOLD YES, THAT HE WAS RESIGNING ROOTS GOING TO RESIGN.

WELL, WHY WOULD WE EVEN HAVE DISCUSSIONS OF WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE OR ANYTHING ELSE? WHY WOULD THAT EVEN BE PART OF IT? IF HE WAS RESIGNING, HE HAD SUBMITTED, OR HE WAS SUBMITTING A LEATHER LETTER OF RESIGNATION, HE WAS LEAVING THE CITY.

WHY WOULD WE EVEN DISCUSS LETTING HIM GO WITH CAUSE WITHOUT CAUSE OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THE SORT, WHAT WOULD THE POINT BE TO THAT? I'M SORRY, BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING THE CITY.

IF HE COULD GET A CONSULTING DEGREE, IT WASN'T, I'M JUST LEAVING THE CITY.

IT WAS, I BELIEVE THE CITY IN EXCHANGE FOR A CONSULTANT.

AND THEN WE SAID, WELL, WHAT IF WE JUST TERMINATED HIM NOW? HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST? WHAT IF WE WENT THE OTHER ROUTES? AND SO THAT'S WHAT THAT DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT.

WELL, I GUESS THAT'S YOUR VIEW OF IT? I GUESS OTHERS HAVE THEIR VIEW OF IT.

BOTTOM LINE IS IT WAS A PRIVATE CONVERSATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE RECORDED AND THE REST OF YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

SO UNFORTUNATELY YOU JUST HAVE TO KNOW WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE OUR VIEW OF IT.

AND, AND, AND AGAIN, I DON'T, UH, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE POSSIBLY WOULD BE HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS RELEASE, BE IT, UM, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE IF HE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED A RESIGNATION, FOR WHATEVER REASON TO PURSUE A NEW OPPORTUNITY, OBVIOUSLY ADD A NEW OPPORTUNITY.

WHY WOULD, WHY WOULD WE EVEN CONSIDER LETTING HIM GO WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE IF HE WAS LEAVING FOR A NEW OPPORTUNITY, I WOULD THINK WE WOULD PAT HIM ON THE BACK AND SAY, WELL, GOOD LUCK TO YOU ENJOY THAT NEW OPPORTUNITY AND, AND HAVE A GOOD LIFE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT EVENING WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT EVENING WAS THE SAME THING THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED SATURDAY AFTERNOON IN THE BACK ROOM OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH WAS THE RELEASE OF MR. SCHOMER BECAUSE HIS PERFORMANCE WAS UNACCEPTABLE AND THERE WERE SOME ISSUES, UH, THAT THE MAYOR HAD AND, UM, AND OTHERS HAD HAD.

SO, UH, SO IF ANYBODY IS STILL WONDERING WHERE MY CONFUSION, OKAY.

JUST LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING SAID, IT JUST DOESN'T JIVE.

IT DOESN'T WORK TOGETHER, FOLKS, UM, THAT THIS IS WHERE MY CONFUSION COMES

[01:50:01]

IN.

I'LL I'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND PUSH BACK MY TIME.

DISCUSSION.

UM, WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE DISCUSSION FOR, UH, FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY FOLLOWUP FROM, FROM RESONANCE, MR. LYONS.

UM, JERRY, UH, I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

UM, THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, WHEN I HAD REQUESTED, UM, AND THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN TUESDAY THAT HOLD OFF SIGNING AND EXECUTING THAT PARTICULAR, UM, CONSULTING CONTRACT.

UM, YOU CHOSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DID THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE DIRECTED BY THE MAYOR AND OF COURSE THE COUNCIL VOTE AND YOU FELT COMPELLED THAT, UH, YOU HAD TO SIGN IT BECAUSE THE PROMPTS THAT YOU WOULD EXECUTED AS SOON AS YOU PUT THAT BACK.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THEN IN YOUR NEGOTIATION OF THAT, UH, RE DESIGNATION IN CONSULTING CONTRACT, UH, THERE WAS ALSO, UM, UH, VISION, UH, HEALTH AND DENTAL, CORRECT? IN THE, IN THE CONTRACT, UH, WE'RE PROVIDING HEALTH, HEALTHCARE, UH, DENTAL ENVISIONED ROCK SHOMER CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S IN A PARAGRAPH TO YOUR PAY.

SO $150,000 IS ON THE FIRST LINE.

ONE, TWO, THREE OFF MID LINE STARTS WITH THE CITY WILL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND COVERAGE, ALL HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CHAUFFEUR CITY SENT THROUGH HARTFORD.

FIRST, IS THAT CORRECT HERE? THAT IS CORRECT.

HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST? THE CITY? ABOUT 5,000 AND SOMETHING LITTLE UNDER 6,000.

FIVE, FIVE TO 6,000.

AND THE PORTION THAT WAS BRED YOU WEREN'T GIVEN AUTHORIZATION FOR 150,000, DID EXCEED AUTHORIZATION.

WELL, IT WOULD, THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE COUNSEL INDULGENCE.

MAYBE WE DISCUSS THE, THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS TO THAT $5,000 FOR HEALTH INSURANCE, AS IT RELATES TO THE VALUE OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF, THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT AND THE RELEASE.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER, JERRY, THAT'S NOT QUESTIONED IN THE MOTION.

DID YOU EXCEED WHAT WAS MOTIONS IN YOUR CONTRACT? WELL, IT WASN'T OUR MOTION.

WE WERE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND THE AGREEMENT WAS FOR $150,000, BUT IT WAS ALSO FOR, AS WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IT WAS THE AGREEMENT, THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

AND AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING BACK TO WHAT SITS IN EXECUTIVE SCREAMING EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH ARE COMMON ON JUST TOPICS, NOT ON THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BLESSED UNDER 50,000 SQUARE FEET.

ADDITIONAL COSTS GO OVER THE 150,000.

IT'S A BARRIER TO TRYING TO SKIRT FETISH.

IS IT CERTAIN NOW YOU GO THROUGH THE STATIONS.

I DON'T THINK I EXCEEDED MY AUTHORIZATION CAUSE MY AUTHORIZATION WAS CLEAR IN MY MIND.

DIFFICULT, JUST DOING THIS.

AND YOU WANT TO DO ALL DIRECTOR AND THAT'S IT.

DECISION.

UM, OTHER IS MAKE TOUGH, BUT I HAVE TO SPEAK IN MY QUESTION, STUPID OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE ARE FINE.

MIGHT MAKE MONEY WITH, UM, UH, PETITION AND UNHAPPY WITH HOW YOU HANDLED THIS.

AND THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT I FEEL.

YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A VERY DIFFICULT TASK, UH, BY MAYOR THEN GIVING BE

[01:55:01]

SO I'M JUST LOOK AT, AND UM, MR. LYONS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE.

WE'RE HAVING A REALLY DIFFICULT TIME HEARING YOU.

THERE'S SOME FEEDBACK COMING THROUGH OR SOMETHING ON YOUR COMPUTER ON YOUR END, BUT WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU CLEARLY.

I TURN MY VOLUME DOWN.

IS THAT ANY BETTER? OH YES, THAT IS BETTER.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE, SO, BUT I'LL TURN IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT WHEN I'M TALKING.

SO JERRY, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT UNHAPPY WITH YOU AT ALL.

I KNOW YOU'RE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.

I WISH I WOULD HAVE FELT COMPETENT ENOUGH TO HOLD ON TO EXECUTING THAT CONTRACT.

SO LAST, WHEN THE MAYOR REFUSED TO PUT IT OFF THE AGENDA, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION'S VERY, THAT YOU'RE FAN.

AND I KNOW I DON'T HAVE TO JUST DUMP THE DIRECTION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL UP HERE.

UH, I DO, I DO WANT TO SAY THANKS.

UH, BECAUSE YOU HAVE 40 EXECUTE, THE CONTRACT COULDN'T HAVE REQUIRED ME WEAR A MICHIGAN WOLVERINE TAB WHILE ON THE DIOCESE.

AND I WOULD HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THAT WAS A FREQUENT, UM, BUT ALSO AGREED TO HAVE MAYOR WEAR PINK SUPER COUNCIL.

I DON'T THINK HE COULD HAVE PULLED IT OFF, BUT SOMETIMES US COULD HAVE HAD A BOND STATUE UP.

I, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR CITY PLANNING THAT, UH, THE MIXER AD INITIATED RESIGNATION, UM, YOU HAVE ADDED THESE CRUISERS, UH, TO THE CONTRACT AND WE HAD TO LIKE THOSE AS WHAT, UM, WANTED TO PUT AN AUTHORIZED E FOR, UH, EVERY SCENE THAT THE C CITY MANAGER HAT DRIVE PLACE.

SO I APPRECIATE IT.

YOU, OR DO ANY OF THOSE ACTUALLY FOOTBALL THAT REALLY HURT A MAYOR? I DO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIALLY ADMITTING A PATIENT POSSIBLE WORD OF MOUTH THAT CORRECT HER.

MR. LYONS, SIR.

SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR TECHNOLOGY.

WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.

COULD YOU POSSIBLY TURN YOUR VOLUME DOWN? SO IT WORKS AND I TURNED HIM DOWN.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? COULD YOU TURN IT DOWN ANOTHER TWO NOTCHES, PLEASE? THANK YOU.

MAYBE THAT WILL WORK.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? UH, YES.

WELL, AS OF RIGHT NOW, I CAN HEAR YOU AUTHORIZE VISUALIZE IT WAS REGIMENT.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED.

YOU MAY BE SET BACK FROM THE COMPUTER JUST A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBE NOT SPEAK SO LOUD INTO THE COMPUTER.

WE MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL THE FEEDBACK.

SO YEAH, LET'S TRY THAT.

WOULD YOU DESIGNATE, WOULD YOU DECLARE MAYOR WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT, WAS IT A FORCED RESIGNATION? YES.

LIKE LAST WEEK, UM, ROB CHAUFFEUR HAS HAD DONE THE CITY PROUD.

I APPRECIATE YOU APPRECIATE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT.

I REALLY DO.

UM, NOW THE REASON, THE REASON THAT YOU INITIATED THE HORSE RESIGNATION, UM, I BROUGHT UP THE SHELL GAME FROM NOVEMBER THAT I FROM THREE FIREFIGHTERS.

UH, WAS THAT THE REASON FOR YOUR FORCED RESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION? NO, NOT, NOT AT ALL.

I BELIEVE THAT WE, IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS, AFTER THAT, WE HAD SHOWN WHERE, UH, THERE WAS NO SHELL GAME.

THE VIDEO SHOWED HOW MANY FIREFIGHTERS WE HAD AND WHAT THE INTENTION WAS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAD, UH, DID NOT ENTER INTO, UM, MY DECISION TO START THIS DISCUSSION WAS AN AREA THAT, UH, NEEDED TO TALK ABOUT THE HIRING FIREFIGHTERS AND DECIDED TO TALK ABOUT A NEW HIRE.

HE PUT IN PLACE.

SWEET STONE STILL HAVE NOW, UH, THIS THIS TIME.

UM, I FEEL LIKE WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AGAIN.

SO THIS, UH, OCCASION ACTIONS, UM, JUST FOR APRIL JUST READER, UM, I THINK, UH, SPOKE, MAKE

[02:00:01]

HE REALLY BROUGHT A, UM, A LEVEL OF RESPECT AND ON SET HOLSTER, OUR STAFF, AND HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND HE HAD BEEN GIVEN, HANDED UP THE OPPORTUNITY, UH, FEAT WITH STAFF IN A NICE BANNER, SAYS, THANK YOU FOR ALL OF HIS YEARS OF WORK.

UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, HE SHOULD HAVE WALKED OUT HAVING A CAKE AND IT'S A SHAME HE DID.

UH, BUT THIS WAS THE SITUATION AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IN A KIND OF ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. LYONS AND THE DISCUSSION MR. WEBB.

THANK YOU, MIRROR.

UM, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UH, IF I MAY ASK LAW DIRECTOR, JERRY, WHEN, UM, WE SENT YOU FORTH WITH THIS, UM, DID WE TELL YOU TO INCLUDE AUTUMN FOR RELEASE OF CLAIMS OR ITEM FIVE, THE NON-DISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT IN THERE? DID WE GIVE YOU SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THOSE ITEMS? ALL THE ITEMS THAT WERE IN THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE DETAIL ABOUT THE COMPUTER.

YOU KNOW, WHY WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU THOSE, THOSE DIRECTIVES? I CAN TELL YOU JUST BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LAWYERS, THIS AGREEMENT WAS GIVEN TO WAIT FOR IT, LEGAL COUNSEL, BECAUSE IT'S A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT.

SINCE WE DIRECTED OUR LAW DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT, TO WORK THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT, THERE'S STUFF IN THERE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT TO PUT IN THERE, THERE'S STUFF IN THERE THAT WILL FACILITATE THE SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER AND OUR INTERIM AND OUR NEW CITY MANAGER ARE BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE WE'RE HEARING A LOT ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE AGREEMENT, WHAT WASN'T IN THE AGREEMENT.

WE TRUSTED OUR CITY LAW DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH OUR FORMER CITY MANAGER THAT LEAVES THE CITY IN THE BEST POSITION POSSIBLE FOR THIS TRANSITION OF POWER FROM OUR CITY MANAGER TO OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER, TO OUR POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY MANAGER SEEN BY AWARE OF WHAT THE ROSE MUSIC CENTER PUT IN OUR BOTTOM LINE IN 2020, IF YOU'RE NOT, IT WAS OVER A MILLION DOLLARS DIRECTOR, THE GENERAL FUND, A MILLION DOLLARS.

PLUS MARY, YOU MIGHT KNOW THE EXACT TOTAL OVER A MILLION DOLLAR STORE GENERAL FUND.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING A SEASON LAST YEAR.

I CAN ASSURE YOU, I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ASK SCOTT SCOTT WASN'T DAY TO DAY ON THE ROSE MUSIC CENTER.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE ROB SHOMER AS AN ALLY THAT ROB SHOMER HELPS CONTINUE THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD.

AS TIME GOES ON.

I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT OLD SPECIFICS AND WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WE DISCUSSED, WHAT'S THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR OUR CITY TO TAKE, TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND WE'RE ON THE RIGHT PATH.

I THINK WE DID THAT.

SO THAT'S MY DISCUSSION FOR THIS EVENING.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THERE ISN'T ANYTHING UNDERHANDED, BACKHANDED OR MYSTERIOUS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND A GOOD DIRECTION FOR THE CITY AND WE'RE DOING SO WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME AT THE LEAST COST TO THE CITY.

OR WILL THAT $150,000 BE LESS ARE CALCULATED AMOUNTS OF THAT COST AS WE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MA'AM ANY OTHER DISCUSSION MR. ED? I KNOW MR. LIONS, THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD FOR A LOT OF YOU TO SWALLOW, BUT THANK YOU, MR. LYONS.

I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON SOMETHING THAT, UH, WAS, WAS VERY, UH, VERY IMPORTANT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS REALLY HEARD OR UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL.

UM, IF WE GO BACK TO WHAT JOE HAD READ EARLIER CONCERNING THE, THE MAYORS, UM, MOTION OR THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, IT WAS STATED BY THE MAYOR.

UM, IT DID SAY FOR A OF $150,000 FOR THAT AGREEMENT, UH, SECTION TWO DOES MENTION THE $150,000 PAID, AND THEN IT CONTINUES TO SAY THAT IT WILL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND COVERAGE, ALL HEALTH, DENTAL, AND VISION INSURANCE AT CITY EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31ST, 2022.

SO ARE THOSE EXPENSES FREE

[02:05:02]

AND I DON'T DISPUTE THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD, BUT I THOUGHT I WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WE WERE ACCEPTING A RESIGNATION.

IT WAS GOING TO COST $150,000 PLUS A YEAR OF INSURANCE, BUT IN THE MOTION, IT WAS FOR A TOTAL OF $150,000 FOR THAT AGREEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO I CORRECT.

I DID THE WILL OF COUNCIL AND THE KIND OF INDIE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED PURSUANT TO WHAT I WAS TOLD FROM COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR'S, UM, MOTION, WHICH FOR $150,000 DID NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE THAT OTHER AMOUNT.

NO, IT DID NOT.

SO, SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER THAN 150,000 IN 150,000 PLUS 5,000 FOR INSURANCE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL, MR. LYONS? UH, YES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

UM, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT COUNCILMAN OTTO JUST SAID, UH, JERRY, UM, YES, THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

AND IF SOME OTHER ATTORNEY WOULD DISAGREE, UH, THE REAL REASON WE COULD BE LOOKING AT VOTING ON THIS AGAIN, INSTEAD OF WINDOW DRESSING, IS THAT IT WOULD PASS THIS CONTRACT AGAIN IN FRONT OF IT, WITH THAT.

AND THEN YOU WOULD BE CLEAR THE VINNY ISSUE.

THAT WOULD BE NICE.

SO THE RECENT, SO THE REASON WE'RE REALLY VOTING ON THIS AGAIN IS BECAUSE LIKE, SEE THAT YOUR, UM, TOTAL ALLOTMENT IN THE, UH, CONTRACT NEGOTIATION, AND MAYBE THAT WAS REQUIRED.

IT'S NO FAULT OF YOURS.

MAYBE THAT'S JUST WHAT WAS NEGOTIATING.

YOU HAD THE, UH, THAT SIGNED IT.

AND NOW WHERE, UH, CORRECTING THAT BY.

SO THIS WHOLE ENTIRE ISSUE IS NOT WINDOW DRESSING AT ALL, AND IT'S NOT AS A, WHAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THE, UM, THAT ARE CLEARING UP SOME CONFUSION.

THERE WASN'T ANY CONFUSION WE SHOULD WORK.

CON SOME OF US WERE COMMON AND THAT WAS BY THE MOTION BECAUSE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO US AGAIN, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MOTION SAID.

AND IT SAID SHE, AND SOME OF US WHO WERE NOT PULLED AHEAD OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS, COMING BACK, THIS IS WHAT'S COMING BECAUSE IT'S ENDED.

SO, OH, LAST QUESTION I HAVE I'LL PUT WHAT'S ACTUAL WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PAL TO SEE, MAKE THAT YOU'RE ON HIS PREVIOUS CONTRACT BEFORE WE AGREED TO THIS CONSULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT NUMBER.

I THINK YOU'RE ASKING YOU BROKE UP A LITTLE BIT IS HOW MUCH THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN UNDER HIS CONTRACT WITH THE RESURRECTION, APPROXIMATELY 150, $2,000.

ALSO THE GREAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, OR BE SAVED BY DOING IT THIS WAY.

THAT'S $2,000.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

NO DISCUSSION, MR. SHAW, I GUESS IT'D BE MY TURN.

WOW.

AND THERE'S A LOT IS GOING ON.

I, YEAH, AT LEAST YOU CAN HEAR ME.

BUT MR. LYONS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET YOU A MICROPHONE, COMPUTER SET UP, BLESS YOUR HEART.

YOU MAY WANT TO CALL IN OR SOMETHING.

UM, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START HERE AT GOOD GUN.

UH, YOU SAID WE GOT TILL MIDNIGHT, RIGHT? MAYBE EVEN LATER.

WELL, WHATEVER YOUR HEART DESIRES, RICHARD.

MR. GORES STATED, AND I QUOTE, I WOULD ASK MR. MCDONALD, IF YOU WOULD GET WITH MR. SCHOMER AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET THOSE AGREEMENTS, HIS RESIGNATION IS EFFECTIVE ON THE EXECUTION OF THAT AGREEMENT.

BUCKLE IN.

UM, JOE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR READING THAT MOTION.

THAT WAS EXACTLY VERBATIM THAT I HAD DOWN HERE.

UM, YOU WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO HAVE MR. GORE'S COMMENTS AFTER THAT VERBATIM, WOULD YOU? OH, DON'T WORRY.

I GOT THAT FOR YOU.

YEAH, I GOT YOU TAKEN CARE OF.

SO AFTER THE, UH, MOTION BY MRS. BAKER AND THE SECOND BY MR. HILL, UM, MAYOR GORES STATED, AND I QUOTE, CAUSE LIKE YOURSELF TOOK SEVERAL TIMES TO READ THROUGH THE, UH, LISTEN AND, UH, AND, UH, THANK TONY FOR, UH, USE OF SWAG IT BECAUSE IT'S EVEN GOT A TRAIN SCRIPTING ITEM BUILT INTO THAT AS WELL.

[02:10:02]

HIS RESIGNATION IS EFFECTIVE ON THE EXECUTION OF THAT AGREEMENT.

THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CODE WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE EXECUTION OF THAT AGREEMENT TO NAME THE INTERN CITY MANAGER, WHO WOULD MOVE FORWARD THERE.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH WHAT MR. GORE SAID AFTER THE VOTE AND WHAT HIS MOTION WAS, UM, THAT, UH, WAS CARRIED, UH, BY, UM, THIS COUNCIL IS AT THE END AFTER COUNCIL HAD VOTED, HIS COUNCIL DID NOT VOTE THAT HIS RESIGNATION IS EFFECTIVE ON THE EXECUTION OF THAT AGREEMENT.

THE MOTION STATED THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR WOULD EXECUTE THE RESIGNATION AND CONSULTATION OF THE CITY MANAGER, ROBERT SCHUMER.

SO A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE BEEN GETTING CAUGHT UP ON THIS WORD, EXECUTE.

AS THE MAYOR HAD STATED THE CHEAP POLITICS TO SPIN GAMES HAVE BEEN GETTING CAUGHT UP ON THIS LEGAL TERM OF EXECUTE WELL, THE CITY HAS USED EXECUTE BEFORE.

UM, I'M GOING TO BE DOING A WONDERFUL VIDEO TO SHOW YOU THE RESIDENTS, HOW YOU CAN GO IN AND LOOK AT OUR CITY'S WEBSITE AND MEETINGS AND SEE HOW MANY TIMES THE WORD EXECUTE HAS BEEN USED.

OH MY GOODNESS.

BUT HERE'S THE KEY.

WAS THE TERM EXECUTE USED CORRECTLY ACROSS THE BOARD OR IS IT BEING CHERRY PICKED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS? ALLOW ME TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU.

SO, AS WE HAD STATED THROUGH THE MOTION AND THE EXECUTE TERM WAS BROUGHT UP, LET'S TAKE A FAST FORWARD BACK TO OUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

UM, BACK ON MAY 8TH OF 2017, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OPT-OUT ELECTRIC AGGREGATION PROGRAM CONSULTANT.

AT THAT TIME, THE WORD EXECUTE WAS USED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THAT VIDEO.

AND A MATTER OF FACT, THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER RAN THAT COUNCIL MEETING FOR SOME REASON, MR. ROGERS WASN'T HERE PRIOR TO THAT AT THE WORK SESSION, IT WAS DISCUSSED AGAIN.

SO IT WAS ASKED THAT THE CITY MANAGER WHO WAS RUNNING THE MEETING, EXECUTE THOSE AGREEMENTS AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE MR. OTTO QUESTIONED HIM ON THAT.

SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED AUGUST 14TH, 2017, IT WAS BROUGHT BACK AGAIN, EXCEPT IN A DIFFERENT TOPIC AS THE HARSHMAN VILLE ROAD PROJECT.

THEN WE'D DISCUSS IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 27TH OF 2017, FOR SUEZ TO EXECUTE THAT AGREEMENT.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

THE AGREEMENTS WERE BROUGHT BACK AT A WORK SESSION PUBLICLY.

SO YOU ALL COULD SEE IT DISCUSSED BY THIS COUNCIL, THEN MOVE TO A COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE ALL COULD DEBATE IT AND VOTE ON IT.

THEN THAT'S THE TERM EXECUTE AGAIN, I'VE GOT EXAMPLES.

WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE GOING ON WITH THAT.

SO THE OUTSTANDING, IN MY OPINION IS WHEN THE LAW DIRECTOR AND JERRY, NOTHING ON YOU, BECAUSE THIS COUNCIL ASKED YOU TO EXECUTE.

I'M SORRY, THE MAYOR'S MOTION ASKED YOU TO EXECUTE.

UM, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WERE WE USING THE WORD EXECUTE CORRECTLY BEFORE OR NOW BECAUSE WHERE THE CONFUSION COMES TO PLAY AS A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE STATED THAT I'M CONFUSED? OH, NO, I'M NOT CONFUSED.

WHEN I LEFT HERE MONDAY, I WAS VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT WE WERE FIRING THE CITY MANAGER AT THAT TIME.

WE WERE WINDOW DRESSING IT AS HAD STATED BY SOME, BY TO THE RESIDENTS TO ALLOW HIM TO RESIGN.

SO OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, UM, DOWN THE PIKE, IF YOU WANT HER TO GET A DIFFERENT JOB, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE COULD BE DONE, AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY $150,000 FOR A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THAT WE WEREN'T PROVIDED.

MR. MCDONALD DID GO THROUGH SOME OF THE TOPICS IN THERE.

UM, AND AGAIN, SHAME ON ME IF I DIDN'T ASK QUESTIONS, UM, A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT.

I WILL ADMIT THAT SHAME ON ME FOR NOT ASKING FURTHER QUESTIONS ALL DAY LONG.

HOWEVER, AS MR. LYONS HAD STATED, THE CON JOB IS SOMEWHERE A FOOT AS MR. OTTO HAD STATED, UM, YOU KNOW,

[02:15:01]

IT'S NOT THE, IT'S NOT THE CONFUSION, IT'S THE BAIT AND SWITCH, I BELIEVE.

AND, AND MR. WEBB, I BELIEVE IN THE INTERVIEW THAT WE DID NOT TOGETHER, BUT, UH, UM, ON ABC FOX 22, I USED THE WORD CORRUPTION.

SO I MEAN, HOLY SMOKES, WHAT IS GOING ON? SO THAT'S JUST THE WORD EXECUTE, I, HER TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.

SO THE SPIN GAME OF THE WORD EXECUTE WE HAVE, I HAVE SHOWN YOU MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THIS CITY USES IT DIFFERENTLY.

NUMBER TWO, AS I'M A KIND OF FEEL LIKE I'M ON A ROLL HERE, MARY, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, OPENING THE DISCUSSION FOR THE SATURDAY MEETING.

I HAD NOTHING TO HIDE DURING THAT SATURDAY MEETING.

I DON'T THINK YOU HAD ANYTHING TO HIDE.

MR. CAMPBELL WAS NICE TO SEE YOU THERE AS WELL.

UM, SO WHEN WE ENTERED CITY HALL AT THAT TIME, ABOUT 1142, I KNOW SOME THIRD PARTIES HAVE ALREADY DONE, YOU KNOW, UM, PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS FOR THE KEY FOBS AND THE VIDEO, THE LOBBY, YOU'LL SEE ALL OF US COMING IN AND SITTING DOWN IN THE, IN THE BACK ROOM OR YOU WON'T SEE US SITTING IN THE BACK ROOM, BUT YOU'LL SEE US COME INTO THE LOBBY.

SO I GUESS, I GUESS MARY, I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IF I MAY.

UM, SO WE CAN REALLY CLEAR THE AIR ON THAT BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT WHERE IT STARTED.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE HORSE REALLY GOT OFF THE KENTUCKY DERBY AND WE WERE ONTO THE TRIPLE CROWN WAS ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF MR. CAMPBELL AND MR. OTTO, UH, INVITED TO THAT MEETING.

NO, AND I, AND I THINK YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WAS PRESENT DURING THAT SATURDAY MEETING WAS YOURSELF MR. CAMPBELL AND ME, CORRECT.

I INVITED MR. OTTO AND HE, UH, NOTIFIED THAT HE COULDN'T COME.

SO I SAID, NEVERMIND, WE CAN DO ANOTHER TIME.

THEN YOU IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED, HEY, I'M AT WALMART, BUT I'M FREE.

SO I SAID, OKAY.

AND I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT I WAS BUYING AT WALMART THAT DAY, BECAUSE SO MUCH HAS TRANSPIRED.

IT DOESN'T.

UM, SO AFTER THE MARCH 8TH, UM, UH, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, I WAS INFORMED BY THE LAW DIRECTOR, UM, UH, THAT, UM, THAT HE HAD TO RECEIVE A CALL FROM YOU, UM, ASKING FOR THOSE CONTRACTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT TIME THAT THEY CALL OCCURRED? UM, HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST KNOW BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD HERE, UH, YOU SAID YOU HAD THE, UH, CONTRACT ON YOUR COMPUTER AT HOME, ON YOUR DRIVE, AND THEN YOU ASKED ME, HEY, WHY DON'T YOU GET WITH MR. MCDONALD AND GET THAT CONTRACT SO WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

YOU SAID, UM, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A LOT OF MONEY AND I BELIEVE MR. CAMPBELL USED THE WORD, HEY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, EV EVERYBODY HAS A GAG REFLEX IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE.

AND, AND YOU SAID, YES, MR. CAMPBELL ASKS YOU TO SLEEP ON WHAT NUMBER YOU'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, QUITE A BIT OF TIME HAS GONE BY BECAUSE WHEN YOU LET US KNOW YOUR WIFE WAS STILL SITTING ON THE CAR, UH, AND THAT'S THE REASON WE, WE LEFT THE MEETING CAUSE WE'VE BEEN BACK THERE PROBABLY AN HOUR AND A HALF HOUR AND 40 MINUTES.

IT WAS, IT WAS ABOUT THAT.

YEAH, NO, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND MY WIFE WAS STILL GIVING ME GRIEF ABOUT BEING OUT IN THE CAR THAT LONG I WENT TO.

UM, SO AFTER THE MARCH 8TH CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, UM, I LEARNED THAT THE, UH, UM, THE LAW DIRECTOR HAD EMAILED THOSE DOCUMENTS OVER TO YOU.

UM, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT TIME YOU RECEIVED THOSE DOCUMENTS ON SATURDAY AFTERNOON? I DON'T KNOW.

UM, WAS IT SENT TO YOUR PUBLIC EMAIL ADDRESS? YOUR HH.

I THINK JERRY, MAYBE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN, UM, WHEN YOU SENT THE DOCUMENTS, THAT THAT WAS ALL, SO PART OF WHEN YOU HAD GOT WITH LIKE THE FIRST EMAIL, I REMEMBER YOU SENDING ME WAS WHEN YOU'D GOT WITH KATIE AND SHE HAD GIVEN YOU ALL THE INFORMATION OUTLINING, I BELIEVE WHAT A WITHOUT, CAUSE I MEAN, I HAD SATURDAY, I WAS ACTUALLY IN HUBER HEIGHTS AT RUSHMORE ELEMENTARY FOR MY MCA BASKETBALL GAME AND I RECEIVED A CALL AND THEY WON THE FIRST GAME.

SO THEY WERE IN THE SECOND GAME.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WE WERE HERE ALL AFTERNOON BECAUSE THEY WENT TO GAMES, BUT I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE MAYOR ASKING FOR THE CONTRACT.

I STOPPED ON MY WAY HOME, WHICH I LIVE DOWN SOUTH.

SO I STOPPED THE DATE AND GOT THE AGREEMENT.

AND THEN I BELIEVE I EMAILED IT TO YOU THAT DAY.

YOU STILL ON SATURDAY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE YEP.

PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN LATER.

I DON'T, I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY, BUT YEAH, THAT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT HAPPENED.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I DO RECALL THAT BASKETBALL GAME IN OUR DISCUSSION, UM, AFTER THE MARCH 8TH CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OR A CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, UM, I WAS INFORMED, UM, MAYOR THAT YOU HAD CALLED THE LAW DIRECTOR SOMETIME SUNDAY MORNING, LATE SUNDAY AFTERNOON, AND STATED THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WAS GOING TO RESIGN.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THAT CALL OCCURRED? NO.

UNTIL THE PHONE CALL TO THE LAW DIRECTOR ON SUNDAY, UM, I GUESS THE QUOTE, ONE OF THE MANY QUESTIONS I HAVE OUTSTANDING IS WHO SPOKE TO THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER AND FORCED HIS RESIGNATION.

UM, SO BETWEEN SATURDAY, MARCH 6TH AT ABOUT 1:20 PM

[02:20:02]

WAS IT, WAS IT MR. MCDONALD? WAS IT MR. CAMPBELL OR WAS IT YOURSELF? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ME AND IT WASN'T MR. OTTO AND IT WASN'T MRS. BAKER.

SO ONE OF THREE PEOPLE AT W WASN'T DONE, SO ONE OF THREE PEOPLE HAD THAT INFORMATION BETWEEN SATURDAY AFTERNOON AND SOMETIMES SUNDAY MORNING, SUNDAY AFTERNOON, SOMEBODY REACHED OUT TO THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER, FORCED HIS RESIGNATION.

THAT IS THE QUESTION I THINK, PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND DO KNOW.

SO I THINK, UM, HAVE NO PROBLEM, NO PROBLEM SAYING THAT, UM, ONCE, UH, AFTER WE'D HAD THE DISCUSSION, UM, MR. CAMPBELL SPOKE WITH MR. SCHOMER AND THAT DISCUSSION WENT SOMETHING LIKE, UH, THIS, I BELIEVE THERE'S A, UH, MOVEMENT, UH, TO REMOVE YOU FROM YOUR POSITION.

AND MR. SCHOMER WAS OBVIOUSLY AT THAT POINT, WONDERING IF THERE WAS, UH, ENOUGH VOTES ON THE COUNCIL TO REMOVE HIM.

AND SO I, I WILL SPEAK FOR MR. CAMPBELL BASED ON WHAT HE TOLD ME, BUT HE CAN CERTAINLY CLARIFY OR VERIFY A CONVERSATION.

UM, MR. CAMPBELL INFORMED THAT HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T KNOW, BUT THE FACT THAT, UH, HE HAD WAS IN A MEETING WITH MYSELF AND YOURSELF BEING THAT AGAIN, THERE'S CLEARLY NO, UH, SECRETS THAT, UM, TUESDAYS OF COUNSEL, MR. OTTO ARE NOT FANS OF MS. SHOMER.

UM, I THINK THAT LED MR. UH, SHELMAR TO BELIEVE THAT YES, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS SERIOUS.

SO I GUESS HERE'S MY QUESTION, BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, UM, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ROB SCHUMER'S EMPLOYMENT.

AM I CORRECT? YEAH.

SO I BELIEVE PROBABLY IT WAS LAST YEAR SOMETIME.

UM, LOTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AGAIN, OVER A PERIOD.

I AM THE LIAISON TO CITY STAFF.

UH, I DON'T REMEMBER A DATE SPECIFICALLY, BUT I DO KNOW THAT, UH, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS CONCERNING, UH, ITEMS THAT WERE GOING ON.

AND, UH, I HAD ACTUALLY ASKED DIFFERENT COUNSELORS TO KIND OF PREPARE A LIST MAYBE OF THINGS THEY WANTED ADDRESSED.

AND, UH, SO I BELIEVE THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT MEETING THAT WE HAD HERE AT CITY HALL, UH, WHERE WE ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE THINGS, UM, OR WHAT YOUR CONCERNS OR FRUSTRATIONS WERE.

SO THAT WAS, THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION, UH, OF IF THAT'S THE TIME THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO 'CAUSE AND, AND I'LL BE GOING BACK TO ANOTHER TOPIC HERE IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT, UM, I KNOW MY RECOLLECTION OF MY OWN THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGERS EMPLOYMENT HAS PRETTY BEEN STEADFAST SINCE 2015, I GUESS WHAT I THINK SOME OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY, ALL OF THEM DESERVE IS WHAT CHANGED ON YOUR MIND TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE WITH ME.

UM, AND WHY NOW, AS, AS I HAD SAID, AND I'LL SAY IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN I WAS ASKED, UM, I WAS ASKED AGAIN, EVEN NOW, HEY, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS IN AN ELECTION SEASON? AND I THINK MY, UM, MY ANSWER EVOLVED AROUND YES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND I BELIEVE THAT FOR US TO PROGRESS IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANTED TO GO, UM, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS TIME.

SO I THINK SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, UH, WITH DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, UM, LED TO THIS.

AND, UH, AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S, IT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION, UM, BUT IT'S A DECISION THAT I WILL STAND BY.

UH, IT'S A DECISION THAT I BELIEVE, UH, NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

AND, UH, AND I'M, I'M HAPPY WE'RE IN THE POSITION WITH MR. FALKOWSKI TO MOVE FORWARD AND I'M SATISFIED THAT THIS COUNCIL KNEW, UM, WE WERE VOTING TO, UH, CHANGE DIRECTIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND I'M, I'M OKAY WITH I'M OKAY WITH WHERE WE'RE AT.

SESSION REGARDING THE, UH, THE VETERANS MEMORIAL.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH SCOTT, I GUESS MY ONLY YES.

AND AS YOU, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WAS AN ISSUE REGARDING THE GRANITE DISCUSSION AT THE WORK

[02:25:01]

AND THAT CERTAINLY WAS, UH, UH, A PIECE OF FRUSTRATION.

THAT WAS, THAT WAS, THAT WAS STICKING WITH ME THAT, UM, I WAS VERY FRUSTRATED OVER AND I, AND I, AND I MADE THAT OPINION VERY APPARENT.

VERY, VERY CLEAR QUESTION WOULD BE, I KNOW AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MR. OTTO HAD, UM, WELL ACTUALLY THANK GOODNESS FOR SWAG.

IT, WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR MR. LYONS, BUT WE CAN SURELY GET A MEETING, UM, RECORDED HERE.

UM, ON MARCH 2ND, MARK CAMPBELL ASKED, HAS THERE, HAS THE VETERANS COMMITTEE, UH, BEEN BRIEFED ON THIS TO THE LEVEL BEHALF, PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER? YES.

MR. CAMPBELL.

SO WHAT I HEARD ORIGINALLY WAS AL GRIGGS HAD AN OPINION, BUT I'M UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THE VETERAN'S COMMITTEE'S OPINION, OR IS THAT HIS OPINION, PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER? WELL, THAT WAS AT A VETERANS, UM, MEETING.

SO IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST VETERANS COMMISSION, MR. OTTO.

UM, I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON ANY TOES OR ANYTHING, BUT I WAS AT THAT MEETING OF THE VETERANS, UM, COMMISSION AND, UM, I, I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM TOO, AND IT COULD BE IT, UM, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC, PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER.

I SET RIGHT BACK THERE AND HE MOTIONED OVER HERE.

SO MARY YOU, AT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT STATEMENT WAS FALSE AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED IT BECAUSE MR. LYONS DIRECTLY ASKED YOU IF IT WAS THE FIREFIGHTERS.

UM, AND I KNOW MRS. BERG HAS HAD SEVERAL PREVIOUS ISSUES.

SO I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WITH STELLAR, UM, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT REVIEWS, COMMENTS BY YOURSELF ON THIS DYESS.

UM, YES, I, I STOPPED DOING EMPLOYMENT REVIEWS BECAUSE I WAS NEVER GETTING ANY FEEDBACK ON WHAT WAS BEING SAID.

UM, AND FRANKLY, UM, IT'S NOT LIKE ANY COMMENTS THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE REGARDING THE, THE CITY MANAGER AND THIS PREVIOUS ISSUES THAT I'VE HAD SINCE 2015 WAS GOING TO GET RELAYED.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS BACK TO THE POINT, WAS THAT THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK, I THINK IT WAS, UM, THAT WAS PROBABLY THE, THE CULMINATION OF A OF, OKAY.

SO I GUESS MR. OTTO HAD ALLUDED TO THIS EARLIER, AND I, AND I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF, UM, BRING SOME CLARITY BECAUSE MR. GOREY YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE MISQUOTED, I'VE BEEN MISQUOTED.

MATTER OF FACT, I WAS JUST RECENTLY MISQUOTED.

UM, THE VIDEO PIECE DIDN'T REALLY DO US ANY SERVICE ON ABC, BUT THE BRITAIN PIECE THAT, UM, SO IN THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD MADE TO THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS THAT WAS REPORTED AT 12:01 PM THAT FOLLOWING TUESDAY, UM, IT HAD STATED, YOU TOLD THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS THAT SHOMER OFFERED HIS RESIGNATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MONDAY NIGHT, CITING NEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE OPENED TO HIM PERSONALLY, OR YOU MISQUOTED LET'S SEE HERE.

I SENT AN EMAIL.

I SENT THE SAME EMAIL TO, UM, CHANNEL TWO AND TO THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS.

AND IT, AND I GUESS I DID SAY, UM, MR. SCHIRMER OFFERED HIS RESIGNATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL LAST EVENING, SAUDI NEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE OPENED TO THEM.

PERSONALLY, WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL VERY SOON TO APPOINT AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO WORK THROUGH THE TRANSITION.

THAT'S THE SAME QUOTE THAT I SENT TO W H O I'M SORRY, CHANNEL TWO.

UH, AND THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS.

UM, LEE MCCLORY, I BELIEVE EILEEN.

SO JERRY, DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH OUR HUMAN RESOURCES TO DISCUSS THAT THOSE CONTRACTS, WHEN WAS THAT? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MONDAY MORNING.

EILEEN MCCLORY JERRY.

WHEN WERE YOU INFORMED THAT THE CITY MANAGER AS MR. GORDON DOES QUOTED THAT HE FOUND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE OPENED UP TO HIM? WHEN WERE YOU INFORMED OF THAT? I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS EVER SPECIFICALLY INFORMED OF IT.

UM, SO FROM THAT SATURDAY DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD TO HERE AND, UM, AND W THE THREE OF US HAD SAID, MAN, YOU MET HER BETTER, GET THOSE CONTRACTS.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THIS.

AND, AND I BELIEVE MR. CAMPBELL SAID, QUOTE, YOU BETTER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND YOU BETTER KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE.

AND, UH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS TOPICS OF CONVERSATION OF SEVERANCE THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP AT THAT TIME, UM, AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

AND THEN IT WAS SAID, WELL, WE'LL GET WITH JERRY.

UM, WE'LL GET THE CONTRACTS AND WE'LL HAVE A EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIOR TO THAT MEETING TO GET THAT AIRED OUT.

[02:30:01]

SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS PRETTY MUCH MOOT BECAUSE THE MAYOR HAD ALREADY TOLD YOU ON SUNDAY THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS GOING TO OFFER HIS RESIGNATION RESIGNATION IN EXCHANGE FOR A CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

IS THAT TYPICAL IN YOUR OPINION? YES.

SO I GUESS, JERRY, IN YOUR OPINION, OUTSIDE OF USING THE TEMPLATE LETTER THAT YOU WOULD USE FOR THE CONSULTING FOR VANDELIA, UM, DID YOU INFORM THIS COUNCIL AT ANY TIME THAT THESE ITEMS ARE NOT TYPICAL? WHAT ITEMS WERE YOU MEAN? OUR PROCESS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS.

DID YOU EVER ADVISE US THAT THESE ITEMS ARE NOT TYPICAL AND ANYTHING, ANY, ANYTHING IN THAT DISCUSSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON MONDAY? NO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I WENT OVER THE OPTIONS WITH COUNCIL.

SO I GUESS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION, UM, THROUGH OUR POLITICAL SPIN GAME HERE, THAT WE'RE PLAYING OF NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

WHEN THE LAW DIRECTOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER HAD FOUND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, YOU ARE QUOTED IN THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS MIRROR STATING HE HAD OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.

UM, THE RESIGNATION LETTER THAT I BELIEVE NOBODY ON COUNCIL SEEN UNTIL TUESDAY STATED OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS TOLD TO ME ON MONDAY.

AND THAT'S WHERE I BELIEVE I GOT SOLD A BAD BILL OF GOODS.

THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION CAME INTO PLAY.

MR. OTTO, WAS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION? ABSOLUTELY.

SO, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, UM, I'M GOING TO ASK A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, SORRY, JERRY.

I'M AT THE SPECIAL MEETING.

UM, DURING A COUPLE OF MY TIMES AFTER TRYING TO ASK QUESTIONS ON GETTING SHUT DOWN, I WAS ABLE TO ASK ONE QUESTION OF YOU AND THAT WAS, CAN WE ROLL THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT BACK? IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE EMAIL YOU SENT ON THURSDAY, MARCH 11TH AT 2:19 PM.

ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FOR ME? YES.

IN THAT EMAIL, IT EDID STATED THE VESTED RIGHT.

OF OTHERS HAVE SINCE INTERVENED.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT STATEMENT? CAUSE I'M A BIT CONFUSED.

SURE.

UM, WE HAD THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS GIVEN TO MR. SCHOMER.

HE RESIGNED AND THAT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT AGREEMENT.

HE RESIGNED AND I SIGNED THE AGREEMENT.

SO IT WAS AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.

IT WAS DONE WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE HAS ALREADY INVESTED IN IT TO THEIR DETRIMENT.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNRAVEL.

SO IN THAT EMAIL, YOU, UH, I BELIEVE AT YOUR LAST PHRASE WAS, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

I'M SIGNING THIS RIGHT OFF.

THE EMAIL ACTION OF COUNSEL IS FINAL.

THEN WHY IS THIS A TOPIC ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MARIJUANA TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THROUGH THE, IF YOU WILL NORMAL CHANNELS.

SO INSTEAD OF HOLDING AND MY OPINION, A SPECIAL MEETING THAT I'D ASKED FOR ON LAST THURSDAY AT 6:00 PM, YOU HAD JUST STATED THE MAYOR SUGGESTED THIS BECOME AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT NOT FOR A DISCUSSION THERE'S LEGISLATION ATTACHED TO IT.

I BELIEVE IN YOUR COMMENTS, JUST NOW THE LEGISLATION WHERE THAT THERE'S A FIRST AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR FOR IT'S NOT EVEN NEEDED.

AM I CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND I BELIEVE WAS THE WORD EARLIER CHEAP POLITICS.

DID YOU FINALLY GET YOUR ANSWER SORTA KINDA YEAH.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT BACK TO THAT.

UM, SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED BY THE AUDIENCE OUT HERE.

UM, JOE, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD ASK THE LAW DIRECTOR IF HE HAD WROTE THAT ON HIS OWN.

UM, AND YOU HAD BROUGHT UP THAT METADATA.

UH THAT'S THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION.

UM, BECAUSE UP TO THEN I HAD NO IDEA THAT METADATA EVEN EXISTED AND WHAT IT DOES, AND THAT, THAT AGREEMENT WAS KIND OF A CARBON OFF A PRETTY CITY, A PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT.

I THOUGHT WE WERE WRITING THAT SPECIAL FOR OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO LIGHT.

UH, MR. THOMAS, YOU HAD ASKED IF HE WAS FIRED.

[02:35:01]

WELL, I, I BELIEVE YOU HAD HEARD THE MAYOR SAY IT WAS A FORCED RESIGNATION.

IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.

UM, THERE WAS PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT ISSUES THAT THE MAYOR HAD, UM, HAD CONFIRMED.

SO DID YOU, DID YOU GET A VALID ANSWER? I MEAN, CAUSE I SURELY HAVEN'T YET.

UM, UH, MAYOR, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD THAT MR. THOMAS I BELIEVE HAD BROUGHT UP, UM, THAT MONDAY WAS SUPPOSEDLY THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER'S LAST DAY.

HOWEVER, HE WAS HERE ON TUESDAY, CONDUCTING A STAFF MEETING AND UP IN HIS OFFICE AND TILL ROUGHLY ABOUT TWO, 2:00 PM.

UM, MAYBE A LITTLE A LITTLE BEFORE THAT, BUT YOU SAID HE WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, RIGHT? NOBODY HAD TOLD YOU OF THAT.

I WAS NOT INFORMED THAT HE WAS THAT DAY.

I FOUND OUT LATER, BUT I WAS NOT INFORMED THAT DAY THAT HE WAS HERE.

DID YOU APPROVE OF THAT? NOPE.

NO.

BUT WE HAVE NO RECOURSE FOR THAT.

DO YOU, I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION, DO YOU PERSONALLY, AS THE MAYOR OF THIS COMMUNITY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WAS DOING HERE A DAY AFTER THIS COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY FIRED? UH, NO.

OTHER THAN WHAT? SO YOU DON'T KNOW.

UM, HE WAS HERE THAT DAY, BUT YOU TOLD ME QUOTE ON SATURDAY AND I BELIEVE MR. CAMPBELL WAS HERE.

YOU HAD SAID, QUOTE, I'M THE MAYOR OF HUBER HEIGHTS.

THERE IS NOT MUCH OF ANYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THIS BUILDING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

TUESDAY LOOKING FOR A CITY MANAGER.

UM, UM, I, I'M SORRY.

MA'AM WAS IT MISSING? YEAH, I, I, I CERTAINLY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UM, YOU HAD SUGGESTED THAT CITY COUNCIL BE GIVEN DOCUMENTS, UH, WHEN WE'RE VOTING ON THINGS.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT.

UM, AND, AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I ADMIT FAULT FOR NOT ASKING FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT TRUST, BUT VERIFY, I THINK HEARD THAT TERM BEFORE I WAS TRUSTING THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE THERE.

UM, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE RESIGNATION LETTER ITSELF EVEN EXISTED BECAUSE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JERRY, DID YOU NOT ASK THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER 7:00 AM TUESDAY FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS AND YOU DIDN'T GET THEM UNTIL EIGHT HOURS LATER? WHY DID IT TAKE EIGHT HOURS? YOU, THE LAW DIRECTOR WAS AUTHORIZED BY THIS COUNCIL TO GET THOSE DOCUMENTS.

YES, I KNOW.

DID YOU INFORM THE MAYOR THAT IT TOOK EIGHT HOURS? I THINK I SENT THE MAYOR A TEXT MESSAGE SAYING I STILL DIDN'T GET THEM YET, BUT THEY WERE COMING SOON.

SO TECHNICALLY THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WAS STILL AT THAT TIME EMPLOYED, CORRECT? OR NOT EMPLOYED UNTIL HE RESIGNED? YES.

AT WHAT POINT IN TIME DID HE RESIGN WHEN HE SIGNED THE RESIGNATION? SO THE AGREEMENT, SO DID HE OFFER THE RESIGNATION PREVIOUSLY OR NOT UNTIL THIS COUNCIL TOOK ACTION ON MONDAY? I'M SORRY, I DON'T FOLLOW THE QUESTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT'S NOT FALLING IN EITHER.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHEN THE RESIGNATION CAME IN TO THE TIME THAT MR. SCHOMER HAD A CONVERSATION THAT HE WAS BEING FORCED TO GIVE THE RESIGNATION TO THE TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE RESIGNATION.

I RECEIVED THE SIGNED RESIGNATION AT A ROUND.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIME LATE ON TUESDAY BY, UM, BY EMAIL.

NO, I, I GOT IT LIKE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND MR. MCDONALD IS YOU RECEIVED THAT RESIGNATION ROUGHLY ABOUT WHAT ABOUT 2:37 PM.

ONE SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

UM, BUT SUMLIN, UM, AND, AND YOUR QUESTION, YOU STATED, WOULD WE HANDLE THIS THE SAME IF IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE? AM I CORRECT ON THAT? PRETTY CLOSE TO, UM, I HAVE NO IDEA.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'D BEEN THROUGH A CITY MANAGER, FIRING RESIGNATION, UH, WHATEVER THE CASE YOU MAY CALL IT.

UM, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE THAT'S BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL OF THEM.

UM, I HAVE NO IDEA, UM, BEING THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, UM, AMOUNT OF MONEY.

UM, AND THIS IS AN EMPLOYEE OF COUNCIL.

UM, I BELIEVE PREVIOUSLY WHEN, UH, THE PREVIOUS LAW DIRECTOR WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COUNCIL, IT WAS PRETTY PUBLIC AT THAT TIME.

UM, I WOULD HAVE TO LEAN TOWARD YES, IF YOU WANTED AN ANSWER FOR ME.

UM, RHONDA, UM, THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO THE RFP ON

[02:40:01]

UM, I AGREE IN PART WITH WHAT THE MAYOR STATED THAT WE NEED TO DO A NATIONWIDE SEARCH TO FIND THE BEST AVAILABLE CANDIDATE.

HOWEVER, IT'S MY OPINION THAT DOES NOT NEED TO HAPPEN AT THIS TIME.

I BELIEVE THIS CITY, UH, AND THIS AND THIS COUNCIL, UM, SHOULD HOLD OFF ON DOING AN RFP SEARCH UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FOR THAT, BECAUSE DURING THE MEETING THAT I HAD HERE WITH THE MAYOR AND MR. CAMPBELL, WE HAD KIND OF DID A LOOK BACK INTO HISTORY AND BACK IN 2017 AND 2018, WHEN THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WAS GIVEN $15,000 AND I RETIRED REHIRED CONTRACT DURING THAT TIME, IT WAS DISCUSSED.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER CITY MANAGER SEARCH DURING A ELECTION TIME WHEN HALF OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR IS UP, THAT JUST RAKES THE POLITICS.

UM, SO WITH THE FACT THAT THE MAYOR'S SEAT THIS YEAR IS UP FOR A PRIMARY AND LESS THAN TWO MONTHS, AND AGAIN, FOR A FINAL, UH, ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, I REALLY DON'T THINK UNLESS THIS COMMUNITY WANTS TO HAVE THIS CLOUD CONTINUING HANGING OVER IT, THAT THIS COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO OVERSEE THAT RFP NOW, WHERE I WAS GOING TO EARLIER IS SCOTT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH YOU, SCOTT.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP GOT ALONG PRETTY WELL, GOT A LOT OF THINGS IN COMMON FAMILY, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.

I HAVE ONE REGRET, SCOTT, YOU SIT RIGHT HERE THE OTHER NIGHT AND IT WAS YOUR BIRTHDAY.

AND I DID NOT WISH YOU A HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

I'M NO I'M TELLING YOU THAT HAS BEEN ON MY MIND.

I MEAN, AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A LEVEL OF RESPECT THAT I HAVE.

UM, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD REALLY MUCH OF ANY DISAGREEMENT, UH, OF CITY POLICY.

UM, YOU'VE BEEN VERY STRAIGHT SHOOTER AND A STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, INDIVIDUAL.

YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.

GIVE ME A LOT OF GREAT PRAISE.

UM, I ALONE, I MEAN, MR. WEBB SERVED WITH YOU ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I HAVE ANYBODY BEEN TO A PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.

THEY TRULY KNOW THE WORK AND ETHIC THAT YOU PUT INTO THAT.

UM, SO IS IT MY OPINION THAT YOU CAN RUN THIS CITY AT THE HELM UNTIL AFTER THIS ELECTION THIS YEAR? ABSOLUTELY.

DO I BELIEVE TO MR. LYONS POINT THAT WE STILL HAVE NOT SEEN A PROPOSED CONTRACT AT THIS COUNCIL TO NEGOTIATE? WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET, BUT I DEFINITELY BELIEVE YOU'RE WORTH EVERY PENNY.

UM, THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION AND I BELIEVE THAT'S AN OPINION SHARED BY A LOT OF RESIDENTS.

UM, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THIS COUNCIL GIVE THAT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

UM, ANOTHER, ANOTHER QUESTION, UM, THAT, UH, THAT HAD KIND OF COME TO MIND AND MARY, YOU HAD ALLUDED TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED THE 20, 20, UM, UH, EMPLOYMENT, UH, EVALUATIONS THAT IS DONE BY THIS.

ARE THEY, THOSE ARE PUBLIC RECORD, CORRECT? YES.

87 SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

UM, AND I KNOW DURING THE PREVIOUS MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION AND YEARS, THINGS HAVE KIND OF CHANGED A LITTLE BIT ON, ON HOW THAT GETS DONE.

UM, AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

UM, IN 2019, I BELIEVE YOU SAID I DIDN'T COMPLETE ONE AND I DIDN'T COMPLETE ONE, UM, FOR, FOR 2020, BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, THEY WERE JUST A WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE NOTHING WAS GETTING DONE.

BUT MY, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS BECAUSE THE WAY THE EVALUATIONS ARE DONE NOW, YOU COLLECTIVELY GATHER THOSE EVALUATIONS AND PROVIDE THOSE TO THE EMPLOYEE, CORRECT? YES.

I HAVE A MEETING WITH THE EMPLOYEE AND GIVE FEEDBACK BASED ON, UM, EVERYONE'S PROVIDED EVALUATION FORM.

SO IN 2019, UM, IS IT YOUR OPINION, UH, OR IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION FROM WHAT THIS COUNCIL GAVE AN EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER? WAS IT FAVORABLE WHEN I ATTACHED THE SCORECARD? YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE TEACHER IN ME, RIGHT.

SO I ATTACH KIND OF THE SCORECARD OF THE ONE THROUGH FIVES, TOLD THEM ALL UP, DIVIDED THEM BY HOW MANY CATEGORIES THERE WERE AND ASSIGNED A PERCENTAGE.

I BELIEVE MR. SCHOMER, HIS PERCENTAGE WAS LIKE AN 86, 87, I BELIEVE IF I HAD TO ADD A PERCENTAGE TO IT.

AND THAT WAS FOR THE 2019, RIGHT? YES.

I OBVIOUSLY I HAVEN'T COMPILED ANY DATA, UM, YET FOR 2020, BUT I DO HAVE ONES FOR MS. BAKER AND I HAVE THEM FOR MR. LANE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THERE WAS FOR 2018? I MEAN, AND, AND ALL I'M ASKING IS, WERE THEY FAVORABLE? NO, I KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST KNOW THE ONES THAT I HANDLED, UM, THAT WERE DONE IN 2019, OR I GUESS IN 2020 FOR 2019.

UH, AGAIN, IF I HAD TO ADD A SCORE, MY, MY RECOLLECTION TELLS ME IT WAS LIKE AN 86

[02:45:01]

YEP.

SO RHONDA, THE REASON I ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT TRUE EVALUATIONS DONE OF AN EMPLOYEE ARE NEEDED IF THEY'RE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH, FROM A TO C, I BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL AT SOME TIME NEEDS TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THAT POLICY.

UM, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT HEAVILY.

UM, I BELIEVE YOU HAD ALSO COMMENTED THAT IT IS IN YOUR OPINION THAT THERE'S NO CONSULTING AGREEMENT NEEDED BECAUSE ROBIN OR, UH, SCOTT IS DEFINITELY CAPABLE TO DO THAT JOB.

THAT WAS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.

CORRECT? I AGREE WITH THAT OPINION.

UM, MRS. MOREN, UM, YOU'RE STILL HERE.

UM, YOU HAD ALSO DISCUSSED, UH, PERFORMANCE REVIEWS.

UM, I ALSO WANTED TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE BECAUSE THIS COUNCIL, SINCE I'VE BEEN ELECTED IN 2016 HAS DISCUSSED, UH, PER EMPLOYEE REVIEWS.

I'VE DONE THEM PREVIOUSLY OUTSIDE OF THE PAST TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST AN EPIC WASTE TIME BECAUSE NOTHING GETS BACK.

UM, AND I'LL, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

I WOULD ASK YOU ONE OF MY MAIN MANTRAS IS DO YOUR RESEARCH DO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WHEN FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND ASK FOR THE OVERALL EVALUATIONS REVIEW THAT WAS SENT TO ALL OF COUNCIL OR YOUR EVEN DISCUSSED AT A COUNCIL MEETING, IF YOU FIND THAT, LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

UM, YOU HAD ALSO ASKED SOMETHING ABOUT THE 30 DAYS NOT GIVEN, UH, DURING THIS RESIGNATION.

UM, AND MR. OTTO HAD QUESTIONED, UH, ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF, UH, YOU KNOW, IF HE HAD RESIGNED, WHY ARE WE PAYING HIM? DID YOU GET ANY MORE CLARITY ON THAT AT THIS TIME? STANDING IS FIRST, LIKE I SAID, THE NUMBERS CAN BE MADE TO LOOK FAKE THE PICTURE.

OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE DID WAS 155,000, MR. OTTO SAID HE VOTED FOR THE 150 CAUSE HE WAS SAVING $2,000, ACTUALLY DISAGREEMENT COST $3,000 MORE THAN THE FLAT OUT TERMINATION WITHOUT COSTS.

SO MY CLARITY RIGHT NOW IS PROBABLY NOT WHAT SOMEONE WANTS TO HEAR BECAUSE JUST WHAT I SUSPECTED APP AND NUMBERS WERE MADE TO WORK PRESENTED IN A MANNER TO GET WHAT WAS DESIRED.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU ALL WANT TO TERMINATE THE CITY MANAGER AS A CITIZEN.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN MY CITY DOESN'T TREAT ITS EMPLOYEES, LEGALLY, ACCORDING TO THEIR CONTRACT, YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD A 30 DAY NOTICE OF WHAT HIS DEFICIENCY WORK WAS IN WRITING AS PER HIS MENTOR.

I DON'T, I GOT VERY CLEAR, THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

AND YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD 30 DAYS TO RECTIFY IT.

AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MEETINGS IN BETWEEN AS TO HIS PROGRESS.

SO AT THE END OF 30 DAYS, WE TERMINATED.

IF YOU WANTED A CONSULTING CONTRACT, THEN YOU COULD HAVE ONE.

AND CERTAINLY IT WAS ENTITLED TO HIS VACATION TIME.

BUT THE NUMBERS TO ME, THEY, THEY WERE MADE TO PRESENT WHAT THE END DESIRE OF WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAID.

HE TALKS ABOUT THE SMALL GROUP THAT WAS MAKING THE DECISIONS.

SO THE DECISION WAS THEY WANTED MR. SHELVER VAUGHN, AND THIS WAS A WAY TO DO IT AND NOT HAVE SHOW HER COMING BACK AFTER US OR BACK AFTER SOMEONE ELSE.

THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I STILL HAVE TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT.

UM, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT EVER.

SO IT'S NOT EVEN WORTH BRINGING UP HERE TONIGHT.

UM, YOU, YOU WOULD STATED ALL OF COUNCIL SHOULD KNOW IN YOUR COMMENTS.

ALL OF COUNSELORS SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO LINDA, MY POINT WOULD BE IS COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN MY OPINION, THIS CITY, UM, AND THIS COUNCIL HAS HAD A HUGE COMMUNICATION PROBLEM FROM THE TOP DOWN.

I BELIEVE WE HAD SHOWN TONIGHT THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME ANSWERS AND A LITTLE BIT OF TRANSPARENCY, UM, THAT ALL COUNCIL DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

UM, BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU, IF I PULL ALL THE COUNCIL, THEY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE SATURDAY MEETING.

THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR WAS ASKED TO GET THOSE CONTRACTS.

UM, PROBABLY SOME OF THEM HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON UNTIL MONDAY DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THIS ISN'T THE ONLY SITUATION I'VE SAID IN THE COUNCIL MEETINGS.

AND OUR PEOPLE COMPLAINED THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT STUFF, AND THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED INFORMATION.

IT HAD, IT IS TIME FOR OUR CITY TO PUT OUT THEIR BIG BOY UNDERWEAR AND START ACTING LIKE A CITY OF THIS SIZE THAT WE ARE AND BEHAVING LIKE PROFESSIONALS.

[02:50:02]

AND UNTIL WE GET THAT FIXED, WE CAN GO THROUGH ANOTHER SIX CITY MANAGERS.

UH, I KNOW THE THREE MAYORS, UH, UNTIL THE CITY COUNCILS THAT PUTS TOGETHER ITS IT'S UNIFIED VOICE AND SAY WE DEMAND COMMUNICATION BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER ON THIS DIOCESE HAS SAID AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

YEAH, I'M SURE MULTIPLE PEOPLE OUT HERE HAVE HEARD THAT.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE LISTS OF REASONINGS, YOU KNOW WHY WE'RE IN THE SITUATION THAT PRETTY MUCH BEGS TO DIFFER.

I HAVE MAYOR IF I MAY, UM, UH, DIRECT MY COMMENTS TO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER, IF I MAY SURE.

THANK YOU, MR. CAMPBELL, I'M CLOSING WITH YOU TONIGHT, SIR.

THE DISCOUNTS WILL PROVIDE YOU ANY DIRECTION OR AUTHORIZATION TO HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER REGARDING THIS EMPLOYMENT.

NOPE.

DID YOU DO THAT ON YOUR OWN FREEWILL? I'VE MET WITH ROB SHOMER.

I HAD SCHEDULED PLANS FOR MY WIFE AND I TO MEET WITH HIM.

HIS FATHER HAS RECENTLY PASSED AWAY AND WE WANTED TO GIVE HIM A SYMPATHY CARD, WHICH WE DID.

I HATE TO HEAR THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE LEFT OUR MEETING ON SATURDAY AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT, WE, AND YOU HAD ASKED THE MAYOR TO GET WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR TO PULL THOSE CONTRACTS AND TO MAKE SURE HE HAD COPIES FOR US AT MONDAY'S MEETING, CORRECT? YES.

I GUESS CONFUSED ON WHY AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, WE WOULD TIP OFF THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER OF OUR CONVERSATION.

IT WASN'T A TIP OFF DURING THE MEETING.

THE CITY MANAGER HAD MENTIONED TO LORI AND I, HIS STATE, UM, AND HE HAD RECENTLY LOST HIS FATHER-IN-LAW NOW LOST HIS FATHER AND WE WENT INTO THE DISCUSSION AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS MY OPINION, UH, THE CITY, UH, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

WOULDN'T BE LOOKING TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

NOW YOU AND I HAD A TEXT AND THEN TALK ON THE PHONE.

UH, EARLIER THAT DAY, I THINK AROUND 12 O'CLOCK I THINK 1206 ACTUALLY, WAS IT SATURDAY OR SUNDAY? SUNDAY, WE DID TALK ON SUNDAY.

I WAS PUTTING A TIMING BUILT IN.

SO YOU WERE ALSO TELLING ME THAT YOU HAD SLEPT LONG, OUR DISCUSSION, THAT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE WITH $125,000 SEVERANCE, SEVERANCE PAY FIRING HIM SEVERANCE PAY.

YOU WERE VOTING FOR MONDAY NIGHT? I THOUGHT WAS VOTING FOR THE RELEASE OF ROBERT SCHUMMER.

AND I KNEW THAT, UH, I, I DID NOT CONVEY THAT TO MR. SHOWMAN.

UM, I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T SAID THAT TO ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THIS CONVERSATION.

UH, BUT I WOULD ASK W WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING THAT UP HERE TO MY, MY CONVERSATION ON SEVERANCE, YOU KNOW, WITH ME, CAUSE, CAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT SIDE CONVERSATIONS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WEREN'T HAVING WITH ALL OF COUNCIL.

WELL, THAT'S ONE.

AND THEN I WAITED ALL NIGHT TO ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDER UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT, INCLUDED THE SEVERANCE PIECE IN IT, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, I'M TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT BEFORE I HAD TO BRING IT UP.

WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING UP THE $125,000 DISCUSSION YOU HAD WITH MARK? WHY DID YOU NOT TELL EVERYONE DURING YOUR DIALOGUE THAT YOU HAD DISCUSSED WITH ME? AND THAT YOU'D BE OKAY WITH $125,000 SEVERANCE? BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION FOR TONIGHT REGARDING THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT INCLUDED THAT SEVERANCE PIECE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE DANCING AROUND, BUT WE'RE NOT DANCING AROUND ANYTHING.

WE TALKED ABOUT MY TALKING TO ROB, WE TALKED ABOUT THINGS THAT ALL OF COUNCIL DIDN'T KNOW, BUT YOU FAILED TO BRING THAT UP UNTIL I DID.

AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF ALL THIS, UH, SINCE MONDAY, BUT GLEN, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION DEAD SERIOUS.

WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND WE DO TONIGHT? HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW.

THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE IT WAS, UM, VERY UNDERHANDED OR BEHIND THE SCENES.

IT'S GOING INTO THE WHOLE THING.

AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO UNWIND SOMETHING WHEN THAT'S HAPPENED, BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IT WASN'T PROPER.

WHAT DID YOU THINK

[02:55:01]

I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE LETTING HIM GO A, UM, UM, WITHOUT CAUSE DID YOU THINK IT INCLUDED A PAYOUT? I THOUGHT IT WOULD INCLUDED A SEVERANCE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CON THAT'S WHAT HIS, UH, AGREEMENT IS.

AND DID YOU HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU WERE AGREEING TO? JERRY HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD COST US ABOUT 150,000 IS WHAT THE AGREEMENT CALLED FOR, IF YOU ADD IT UP, HIS SALARY AND HIS LEAVE AND HIS, ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WENT IN IT, IF WE LET HIM GO WITHOUT, CAUSE IT WOULD COST US ABOUT 150,000.

SO I, I SAID THAT, YEAH.

AND THE FIRST THING THAT, UH, TIPPED YOU OFF THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG AND, AND FOR THE RECORD, I'VE NEVER TURNED ON ROB, YOU KNOW, UH, AT ALL.

UM, BUT WHAT TIPPED YOU OFF INITIALLY WAS WHAT YOU READ IN THE PAPER THAT HE SAID THAT ROB HAD, UH, OPPORTUNITY? YEAH, THE, THE, HE HAD IT WHEN IT SAID THAT HE HAD RESIGNED TO PURSUE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.

I THOUGHT, WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE.

NO, NO, WE JUST LET HIM GO.

HE DIDN'T READ IT.

DID YOU THINK MONDAY NIGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT? I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO ENTAIL, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE ONE.

I, AND I EXPECTED THAT THAT WOULD COME BACK TO US SO WE CAN REVIEW IT AND FIGURE OUT IF IT WAS PROPER OR NOT.

JERRY, IF YOU PROVIDED THAT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO ALL OF US NOW.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT THAT JERRY'S PROVIDED AT THIS POINT? I'M NOT SURE THAT I AM.

UM, AND WHY ARE YOU NOT SURE? WHAT W WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE IN THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO, TO TRY TO, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS NEEDS CORRECTION IN SOME MANNER, BECAUSE IT JUST, IT DID HAPPEN.

THE WHOLE THING WAS A FARCE.

THE WHOLE SITUATION WAS BROUGHT UP AS ONE THING.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

I WOULD HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM IF THEY DID COME, THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE COME AND SAID, HEY, MR. SUMMERS DECIDED HE'S GOING TO RESIGN.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO LET HIM GO, LET HIM RESIGN AND MOVE ON, BUT WE'LL DO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH HIM.

UM, HONESTLY I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PROPER IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS PAY OUT, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A SEVERANCE PACKAGE, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

WE CAUSE BY MONDAY, BY MY RECOLLECTION, THE DISCUSSION WAS TO RELEASE THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE WE HAD ISSUES AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I MEAN, PEOPLE GROW OUT OF RELATIONSHIPS AND WE COULD VERY EASILY AS STATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RATE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER IS KIND OF FALLING APART AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

THAT WOULD BE A, A SEVERANCE PACKAGE AT THAT POINT.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY LABELED.

SO WE COULD MONDAY, YOU THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY MANAGER, SOME CERTAIN LENGTH OF TIME.

WE WERE GOING TO PAY HIM 150,000.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO BE BASED ON THAT SEVERANCE CALCULATION.

GOING TO GIVE HIM $150,000 FOR SOMETHING.

YOU GONNA GIVE HIM 150 AND WE WERE GOING TO ENTER INTO SOME TYPE OF AN AGREEMENT, SOME TYPE OF AN AGREEMENT FOR A VERY SHORT TERM, UM, SIX MONTHS JUST TO GET SCOTT PUSHED FORWARD.

WELL, I, I, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM WOULD BE AT SIX MONTHS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE QUITE HONESTLY.

AND NOW I DIDN'T KNOW.

IT WAS SIX MONTHS AT THE TIME.

WE DIDN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE DISCUSSED A TIME PERIOD SPECIFIC.

SO, SO THE BIGGEST THING IS THAT HE RESIGNED AND WE DIDN'T RELEASE HIM.

AND I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

NO, NO, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE GET WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, UM, WE'VE GIVEN US OR SHIMMER THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS AND THE CITY YOU GOT GETS NOTHING IN THE DEAL.

BASICALLY.

THIS IS A, UM, WE, WE WANTED TO GET RID OF HIM, BUT, UM, HE GETS TO WALK AWAY RESIGNING, NOT BEING RELEASED WITHOUT CAUSE, BUT HE GETS SOME WALKWAY RESIGNING AND GETTING A PACKAGE.

IN MY OPINION, HE GETS, HE GETS EVERYTHING IN THE DEAL.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE THE CONTRACT, THERE'S A REASON IT'S SET UP THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE LET PEOPLE GO, WE GOTTA PROVIDE THEM SEVERANCE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S KINDA THAT THING THAT SAYS, OKAY, WE'RE LETTING ME GO.

THERE'S A PURPOSE FOR THIS, BUT HERE'S YOUR SEVERANCE BECAUSE IT'S A SUDDEN THING.

SO ON AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S WHY THOSE ARE IN THOSE CONTRACTS.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A REASON WHY IT SAYS IF THEY RESIGN, THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THAT.

SO WE, I THINK WE NEED HONESTY WITH OUR RESIDENTS AND, YOU KNOW, CAUSE HE CAN'T BE, HE CAN'T RESIGN AND RECEIVE ALL THIS MONEY.

IT HAS TO BE WHAT, WHAT WAS IT? DID HE RESIGN? WHAT WE DID? WE LET HIM GO.

UH, IT JUST, IT, IT FEELS TOO, NO MATTER WHICH ONE IT WAS, WE KNEW WE WERE

[03:00:01]

I FIGURED WE WERE GOING TO GIVE HIM 150,000 BECAUSE WE WERE LETTING HIM GO.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR.

I JUST CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO MR. CAMPBELL'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE $125,000 DISCUSSION.

THE REASON I DIDN'T BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE WHEN WE SPOKE ON SUNDAY, MY RECOLLECTION WAS, IS DOING SOME ROUGH NUMBERS.

I BELIEVE THIS IS MY GAG NUMBER.

HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS VACATION AND SICK TIME ACCRUED WHAT I BELIEVE I SAID THAT.

UH, I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT OKAY.

SO YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

AND IF YOU ASKED ME THE SAME QUESTION, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT? UM, I'M NOT A FAN OF THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

UM, THE RESIGNATION LETTER, UM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DATED, UH, WHEN THIS COUNCIL RELEASED HIM ON THE EIGHTH AND IT'S NOT, UM, ADDITIONALLY THE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE, HAVE MATCHING DATES ON IT, NOT A DAY AFTER.

UM, IT SHOULD, UM, BEEN, YOU KNOW, COLLECTIVE ON THERE.

UM, SO YEAH, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT ADDITIONALLY.

AND UH, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW MAYOR, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION NOW OR WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE FUNDING PIECE OF IT, DO YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THEN WHATEVER THE WILL OF COUNCIL IS? SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO JERRY'S POINT THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT AND RESIGNATION, WELL, IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE ON HERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO LEGAL BINDING.

THAT'S ALREADY DONE OVER WITH THE WHOLE NINE YARDS.

UM, BUT THE APPROPRIATION PIECE, THE ACTUAL AUTHORIZATION TO PAY MR. SCHIRMER THAT REQUIRES SIX VOTES.

DID THAT GET MISSED? WHY WAS THAT BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MOMENT? BECAUSE I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE FIRST ONE.

SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED.

WELL, NO, NO.

WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHY IS THIS LEGISLATION BEING RUSHED? WHY WASN'T IT? WHY, WHY WAS THIS NOT DISCUSSED AT MONDAY'S MEETING OR AT WEDNESDAY'S MEETING? WELL, WE HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO PAY HIM.

IF WE HAVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL IN PLACE BEFORE WE PAY HIM, ALL OUR ACCOUNTING BOOKS WORK OUT NICE AND NEAT AND CLEAN.

IF WE DON'T, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FROM NEGATIVE ON OUR ACCOUNTING BOOKS.

SO IN MY OPINION, MY VIEWPOINT, AND I THINK I SHARED THIS VIEWPOINT WITH A LOT OF OTHERS IS WE RUSHED INTO THE FIRING OF THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WHEN YOU'RE RUSHED INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT.

DID WE FIRE HIM? DID WE HIRE HIM? DID HE GO ON TO DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES IS GOING TO A DIFFERENT JOB? WE DON'T KNOW.

UM, OH, SHUCKS IN THERE.

WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO PAY HIM.

AND ON MONDAY WE HAD AN APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED AND ADDED HAD THE EXECUTIVE SESSION HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE MEETING AS IT WAS DISCUSSED ON SATURDAY.

HOWEVER, IT WASN'T.

SO NOW WE'RE ONE.

OH MY GOODNESS, WHAT HAPPENED? AND NOW WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

I, JERRY, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO SAY YES, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED OR NO, WHAT'S PROBABLY HAPPENED BECAUSE I, AS I STATED, THAT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW AND OPINION OF WHAT HAPPENED IS WE STARTED READING WHAT WE DID AND FOUND OUT, OOPS, WE DON'T HAVE LEGISLATION TO MATCH THAT.

AND IF WE LOOK AT THE DAYS, IS IT THE EIGHTH? IS IT THE NINTH? IS IT THE 10TH? WHEN DOES THE AGREEMENT AND FULL EFFECT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WHEN BOTH PARTIES SIGNED IT? SO IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE THE 10TH WHEN YOU'RE, SO THAT'S WHEN THE SEVEN DAY COUNTER START AND NOT ON THE MONDAY WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING.

UM, BUT YET WE'RE HERE TODAY TO, UM, HOPING TO GET SIX VOTES, UH, TO PAY BECAUSE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JERRY, UM, IN YOUR EMAIL ON THURSDAY, IT STATED THAT THIS AGREEMENT AND RESIGNATION IS FINAL, BUT AT THIS DOESN'T GET SIX VOTES TO PAY THAT $150,000.

HE DOESN'T GET $150,000.

AM I CORRECT? YOU'RE INCORRECT.

I'M INCORRECT.

YES YOU ARE.

THEN WHY ARE WE VOTING ON THAT TONIGHT TO CLEAN OUR BOOKS? WE HAVE, WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE TIME DONE CONTRACTS AND THEN SEND SUPPLEMENTALS AFTER THE FACT.

SO IS THAT WHERE THE KEY OF THE RATIFYING COMES IN THE LEGAL TERM RATIFYING ONTO THE AGREEMENT? ARE WE RATIFYING THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS NOT PASSED OFFICIALLY BY THIS COUNCIL? OR ARE WE PASSIONATELY THE APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND IT? WE'RE DOING BOTH.

WE'RE DOING BOTH BECAUSE IT WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY.

THE FIRST TIME WAS LEGAL.

IT WAS LEGAL THE FIRST TIME, BUT WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME.

IT WAS NOT DONE THE WAY WE NORMALLY DO THINGS.

MR. MAYOR, THAT IS ALL DEBATE I HAD TODAY.

I'M ALREADY TO CAST TO NO VOTES AND MOVE ON WITH MY EVENING.

THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES JUST SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR.

SO THERE IS SOME CLARIFICATION.

I DO WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MR. SEAN BROUGHT UP

[03:05:01]

THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE THIS COUNCIL PASSES LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THE LAW DIRECTOR OR SOMEBODY TO GO OUT AND DO THINGS, EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS THAT NEVER HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL TO BE VOTED ON, TO BE TALKED ABOUT, TO AGREE, TO WAIVE A COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST ONE SPECIFIC TIME THAT'S HAPPENED WAS WITH RESOLUTION 2019, OUR 67 94.

THIS COUNCIL APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF 51 AND A HALF ACRES ON EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD FOR 3.7, $5 MILLION.

BUT IN THAT AGREEMENT THAT WAS VOTED AND APPROVED EIGHT TO ZERO COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION FOR $4 MILLION.

THAT'S 250,000 BUCKS.

THAT'S A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS THAT THESE SAME PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

NOT THE PROCESS VOTED TO ALLOW MR. SCHUMER TO GO OUT AND NEGOTIATE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS, UM, SURVEYS, UH, TIE, WHATEVER, ALL THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THAT MR. ROGERS ALWAYS, UH, ADDS INTO OUR LEGISLATION AND FORMER MAYOR MCMASTER'S.

THANK YOU, SIR.

WAS SO KIND ENOUGH TO POINT THAT OUT.

HE SAID BUBBLY THAT MR. OTTO'S STATEMENT WAS OUTRAGEOUS THAT WE NEVER DO THESE THINGS.

WE'D DONE IT THIS TIME FOR A, OF A MILLION DOLLARS.

THEY APPROVED MR. SCHUMER TO GO OUT AND DO WHATEVER HE NEEDED TO DO WITHOUT EVER BRINGING ANY OF THAT BACK TO COUNCIL TO PASS THAT LEGISLATION AFTER THE FACT.

AND WE ALSO GAVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY AND APPROVED HIM TO WAIVE ANY COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT AND THAT LEGISLATION.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS DONE THIS BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE HOW IT'S NORMALLY DONE THAT PROCESS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT WAS DONE TO THE TUNE OF A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS APPROVED EIGHT TO ZERO BY THIS COUNCIL.

I HEAR A LOT ABOUT HOW SO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OR HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.

AND I JUST WANT TO BRING UP A COUPLE, UM, INSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE MAKING THIS CLAIM ARE A LITTLE HYPOCRITICAL.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN MR OTTO AND MR. SHAW AND THE DANE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING A COMPANY CALLED CARGILL TREE.

YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THAT, WHERE YOU KNEW WHAT CARGILL IS.

AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS GOING ON ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO, UH, GET THEM TO SEPARATE PROVIDING ALL THEIR WATER FROM THE CITY OF DAYTON.

AND HAVE HE WRITES, PROVIDE THAT WATER? I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

NOW IT HAPPENED A WHILE AGO.

AND MR. WEBB, DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT? SO I'M, I'M REALLY GETTING A LITTLE FRUSTRATED AT BEING ACCUSED OF ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING NEFARIOUSLY OR THAT WE'RE NOT LETTING PEOPLE KNOW BY TWO PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO DO THOSE SAME THINGS.

I HAD A, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I MEAN, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

HE NEVER TOLD ME, OH, I'M SORRY, MR. FALKOWSKI KNEW ABOUT IT.

HE WAS AT THAT MEETING.

WELL, BUT MR. , HE'S NOT ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND HE WASN'T ON CITY COUNTY.

I THINK YOU WERE INVITED AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WITH MRS. MACDONALD, THE MAYOR OF TROTWOOD SPECIFICALLY TO SELL OUR WATER TO THEM? THE FIRST TIME I HEARD ABOUT THAT WAS WHEN AGAIN, SHE APPROACHED ME HERE AT THE LAST SWEARING IN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT I W WHAT, WHAT I'LL FINISH HERE.

SO I ALSO, I ALSO, WELL, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

YOU TALK, YOU TALK ABOUT COUNCIL, NOT KNOWING THINGS THAT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED ON COUNCIL AT A PUBLIC MEETING HERE WHERE YOU INFORMED ALL OF US WHILE YOUR CONVERSATIONS REGARDING CARGILL AND WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.

I HAD NO IDEA I'M TALKING, I'M JUST MAKING THAT CLAIM THAT SOMETIMES IT'S A FALSE CLAIM, THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY AND WHAT YOU ACCUSE US OF YOU ARE BEING VERY HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S ANOTHER POINT OF CONTENTION I FOUND OUT IT WAS ACTUALLY DURING THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF, OF MR. OTTO, MR. SHAW, THIS LAST TIME, UH, MAYOR MCDONALD FROM TROTWOOD APPROACHED ME IN THE BACK ROOM.

AND SHE SAID, HEY, MARY, I'M REALLY EXCITED AND ANXIOUS TO GET TO TALKING TO YOU ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WATER TO US IN TRAVELING.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED ABOUT, UM, SELLING WATER TO OTHER PLACES, BUT I HAD NO IDEA YOU HAD HAD THOSE LEVEL OF DISCUSSIONS WITH ANOTHER MAYOR OF ANOTHER CITY ABOUT PROVIDING WATER

[03:10:01]

NOW.

SO AGAIN, YOU CAN LAUGH IT OFF.

SEE, BUT IF WORDS MATTER AND YOU'RE ACCUSING THIS PART OF THE DIOCESE OR, OR THIS SIDE OR ME OF, OF KEEPING THINGS FROM YOU NOW, QUITE FRANKLY, I'VE NEVER REALLY MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK ALL OF US ON THIS COUNCIL HAVE SKILLSETS AND ARE GOOD AT DIFFERENT THINGS.

I'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE OR A PROBLEM WITH ANYBODY GOING OUT AND TALKING TO A DEVELOPER.

IF YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT CAN COME TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND HELP US AND HELP US GROW, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.

I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING.

WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THAT YOU DO.

I JUST THINK THAT'S VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

SO FROM, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TOO.

THAT'S JUST, I'M SURE THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS, BUT THOSE ARE TWO INSTANCES.

I KNOW THAT DISCUSSIONS WERE HAD THAT I WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF THAT I, THAT I DIDN'T KNOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, SHAME ON ME FOR NOT BEING POPULAR ENOUGH TO BEING INVITED TO A MEETING ABOUT CARGILL WITH THE DAYTON CHAMBER.

BUT I MEAN, I DO HAVE A DAY JOB AND I WASN'T INVITED, BUT I WOULD HAVE, AT LEAST I WOULD HAVE AT LEAST THOUGHT THAT SOMEBODY THEN WHO ATTENDED THAT MEETING WILL LET ME KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND, AND I, AND I, I DIDN'T, I WASN'T, I WASN'T INFORMED OF THAT.

THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE CALLED ROUND ROBIN LAWS THAT REGARDS TO THE SUNSHINE LOSS.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN CURIOUS ABOUT HOW DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T DON'T KNOW THINGS OR DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

UM, THERE ARE, IF, IF EVERYTHING THAT WE ATTEMPTED TO DO, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE DO REPRESENT THEMSELVES AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF HE WERE HEIGHTS AND GOING OUT AND TRYING TO WORK FOR THE CITY AND DO THINGS TO BRING THOSE BACK, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

UM, I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT, OR YOU SHOULD LET US KNOW, BUT WE CAN'T GO.

SO FOR THE CITY OR THE RESIDENTS TO KNOW WE CAN'T GO OUT AND START TALKING TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT, DID EVERYBODY KNOW, UH, ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO MEET WITH, UH, ANY MORE THAN THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT A TIME, BECAUSE IF I MEET WITH FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I MAKE THE FIFTH ONE, AND THAT BECOMES A CORUM AND THAT'S AGAINST THE SUNSHINE LAWS.

SO WE CAN'T IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS GO AROUND TALKING TO EVERYBODY ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS.

SO WE HAVE TO DEPEND ON EACH OTHER TO DO WHAT'S IN THEIR SKILL SET TO DO.

I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT IN FAVOR OF THAT 100% IN FAVOR OF THAT.

I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS DO TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I'M DOING SOMETHING THAT I'M DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

YES, MR. RONDEAU I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE CARGO CONVERSATION WITH MAYOR MCDONALD.

UH, THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS WE DIDN'T COME BACK HERE WITH ANY LEGISLATION.

WE DIDN'T DIRECT ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING.

THERE WERE NO ACTIONS TAKEN.

IT WAS SIMPLY DISCUSSIONS ON DESIRES.

AND, AND IF WE COULD POSSIBLY WORK WITH THEM, WE WOULD LOVE TO BE ON BOARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

FAIR ENOUGH.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IT.

UM, AND, AND I WANT ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION BEFORE, BEFORE I VOTE.

I JUST WANT TO GET THIS IN, UH, MR. MACDONALD BASED ON WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER.

DO I, AM I CORRECT? REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS COUNCIL VOTES ON THIS EIGHT OH ZERO EIGHT FOUR FOUR FIVE THREE.

IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.

AND I GUESS TO CLEAR UP THAT ACCUSATION, AS WELL AS MR. ODDO STATED NOT ONLY WAS PREVIOUS COUNCILWOMAN SMITH ALSO AT THAT CARGILL MEETING.

UM, SHE AND I, AND ALSO CAME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL WITH A REPORT BACK, PROVIDED IT TO THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER, UM, WHO CASCADED THAT DOWN.

WE WERE INVITED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DAYTON CHAMBER BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP IN THE REGION.

I APOLOGIZE IF YOU DON'T.

UM, DID IT SHOW, I THINK I HAVE A JOB.

THAT'S THE REASON THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO GO PROBABLY, YEAH, NOT AT THAT TIME.

THAT WAS NOT THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD.

UM, ACCORDING TO THE PREVIOUS, UM, UH, STATEMENT OF YOU HAD MADE WITH THE, UH, WATER TO TROTWOOD THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED NOT ONLY ON THIS DYESS HAPPENED WITH THE, UM, DIRECTOR OF SUEZ HAPPENED WITH THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER HAPPENED TO GET ON THIS DIET, UM, MULTIPLE TIMES.

UM, SO TO SAY YOU WEREN'T AWARE IT WAS NOT THAT YOU WEREN'T AWARE THAT YOU WEREN'T PAINTING? NOPE, NOT AT ALL.

I DON'T KNOW.

I NEVER HEARD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SELLING OUR WATER SPECIFICALLY TO TRAVEL.

I KNOW WE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OUR CURRENT PLANT OR THE ONE THAT WE SHUT DOWN.

THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS OF HOW MUCH MONEY IT MIGHT TAKE TO FIX IT, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS ABLE TO WORK, BUT NEVER EVER, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION THAT WE WERE IN DISCUSSIONS, HAVING DISCUSSIONS

[03:15:01]

IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT IT'S COME TO LIGHT TO, UM, WAS MR. SHAW, DID YOU AND MR. OTTO DISCUSS YOUR NUMBER OF $125,000? UH, NO, BECAUSE AT THE TIME THAT, UH, MR. CAMPBELL ASKED ME TO GET BACK WITH HIM, UH, THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION I BELIEVE I EVEN TOLD MR. CAMPBELL, UM, HEY, YOU ASKED ME TO REACH BACK OUT TO YOU.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THIS, UH, MR. OTTO.

UM, THIS IS MY FIRST CALL TO YOU.

SO NO.

SO DID YOU DISCUSS THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT SATURDAY AND THAT MEETING WITH OTTO? YES.

THAT'S ACTUALLY INCORRECT.

SO, SO YOU HAD REACHED OUT THEN TO MR. CAMPBELL, LET ME MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR HERE.

YOU'D REACHED OUT TO MR. CAMPBELL SAID, HEY, GIVE, GIVE ME A CALL.

HE CALLED YOU.

YOU SAID, YEAH, I'VE SLEPT ON THIS.

AND I'M OKAY.

PAYING THE SAME MANAGER, $125,000.

I TOLD HIM THAT WAS MY GAG.

HOWEVER, I DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION BECAUSE I WAS STILL WAITING FOR JERRY TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION ON MONDAY.

WITH GIVING HIM THE MONEY, BUT NOT OKAY WITH ALLOWING HIM TO OFFICIALLY RESIGN ON PAPER WITH DIGNITY.

SO THAT WAS A BASELINE DISCUSSION.

UM, AND YES, I DID ADVISE MR. OTTO WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE HE WAS INVITED AND YOU HAD STATED, YES, I HAVEN'T SAID TRUE.

I MEAN, I INVITE HIM TO THE MEETING, SO ABSOLUTELY.

I WAS, I WAS TOTALLY OKAY WITH THAT.

I JUST WANT TO ASK IF YOU HAD SHARED WITH HIM, YOUR GAG NUMBER OF $125,000.

SO I THINK THEN, SO FOR TALKING AND BEING HONEST AND OPEN, I THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT.

I THINK IN MY OWN OPINION, AS I'M LISTENING TO ALL THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY WAS OKAY WITH PAYING ROB TO GO AWAY, WHETHER IT WAS A HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR WHETHER IT WAS $150,000, IT WAS 150, $2,000.

I THINK EVERYBODY WAS OKAY WITH PAYING ROB TO GO AWAY.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND NOW WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN THE MONEY IS BEING MADE THE ISSUE BECAUSE THE MONEY TO ME DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE ISSUE.

WHAT THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE IS THAT YOU DIDN'T GET THE FIRE ROB SUMMER.

IT'S THE POLITICAL SPIN GOING ON.

OH, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

NOT AT ALL THAT, MS. ROBIN, WHAT WAS THE RESIGNATION LETTER? YOU'VE SAID, IF YOU, UH, IF, IF YOU COULD HAVE WROTE MR. SCHIRMER'S RESIGNATION LETTER, WHAT WOULD IT HAVE SAID? I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

I DON'T KNOW.

OH, NO.

WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD IT, WHAT WOULD HIS LETTER, WHAT IF YOU COULD HAVE WROTE HIS RESIGNATION LETTER, WHAT WOULD IT HAVE SAID TO MAKE YOU OKAY WITH THE VOTE THAT YOU MADE MONDAY NIGHT TO APPROVE HIS RESIGNATION AND CON CONSULTATION AGREEMENT? BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL SAID WE'VE HEARD WHAT IT WAS.

YOU CAN STILL SAY YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE VOTING ON, BUT THE MOTION WAS CLEAR AS SET BY, BY MR. HENDRIX.

I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT IF W WHAT WOULD HIS RESIGNATION LETTER HAVE NEEDED TO SAY IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE OKAY, VOTING THE WAY YOU VOTED? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER WRITING IT.

NO, I'M JUST ASKING YOU.

YOU'RE ASKING ME WHAT I, WHAT LANGUAGE I WOULD USE IF WE WERE RELEASING HIM.

NO, NO, NO.

I'M, I'M ASKING.

I I'M ASKING, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT, AGAIN, I THINK THIS COMES DOWN TO HOW SOMEBODY RESIGNED.

SO WE LET SOMEBODY RESIGN WITH DIGNITY.

DO WE LET SOMEBODY RESIGN WHERE THEY CAN GO ON TO ANOTHER EMPLOYER AT SOME POINT IN TIME? WHO KNOWS WHEN A, WHAT? DIGNITY? I I'M TELLING YOU.

THIS JUST FEELS A LOT, LIKE, HOLD ON.

THIS MAKES IT FEEL A LOT TO ME.

LIKE EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THE MONEY YOU WERE EVEN OKAY, WITH $125,000 JUST TO GO AWAY.

EVEN NOW WE HAVE AN, A SITUATION.

WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WHERE WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING BACK FROM HER MONEY.

ROB WAS GOING TO GET $41,000.

ANYWAY.

NOW AT LEAST WE'RE GOING TO GET SOMETHING BACK FROM HIM THAT MR. PHIL KOSKI BELIEVES IS VALUABLE.

SO I'M JUST CONFUSED HOW EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THE MONEY.

WE'RE JUST PISSED OFF THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE FIREARM.

NO, BECAUSE BECAUSE BACK IN 2017, BACK IN 2017, THERE WAS A MOTION MADE TO TERMINATE ROB SCHUMER THEN, AND YOU SECONDED THE MOTION.

AND THEN ONCE THEY REALIZED THERE WASN'T ENOUGH VOTES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN BECAUSE MRS. BLANKENSHIP GOT UP AND WALKED OFF THE DICE.

YOU WITHDREW YOUR MOTION, MR. SHAW SAY THAT PUBLICLY.

AND HE MAKES NO BONES ABOUT HOW HE FEELS ABOUT ROB SHELMAR WHILE THEY WERE PROMOTING SECRETLY HELD RECORDINGS OF A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE OVER THE COURT LEASE.

MR. SCHOMER OR MR. SHAW HAD, DID A PODCAST WITH MR. TRUMAN AND STATED MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

MY NUMBER ONE GOAL WAS TO TERMINATE THE CITY MANAGER, BEEN THERE SINCE 2015.

AND I'M NOT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT SINCE YOU, SINCE YOU MADE THOSE COMMENTS AND WE'RE ALL AWARE OF HOW YOU FEEL PERSONALLY, MR. SCHOMER, YOU'RE OKAY WITH GIVING HIM THE MONEY.

LIKE I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE HOW YOU'RE OKAY

[03:20:01]

SO IT REALLY SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT YOU'RE OKAY, GIVING HIM THE MONEY TO GO AWAY, ROB SHOMER, AS LONG AS I CAN SAY, WE FIRED YOU.

THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, MR. ROD, MRS. HONAKER.

I'D LIKE, WELL, I'M GONNA LET HER SPEAK.

I'M GONNA LET HER SPEAK.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

EMOTION.

THAT WAS RED.

SAME WHAT I READ BEFORE, RIGHT? OKAY.

IT IS NOW SEVEN 45 AND WE HAVE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DIRECT THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR, TO EXECUTE A RESIGNATION AND CONSULTATION AGREEMENT OF CITY MANAGER, ROBERT SCHUMER FOR A TOTAL OF $150,000 FOR THAT AGREEMENT.

YES, PLEASE.

DESPITE MONEY.

I AGREE WITH LINDA ON THE MONEY AND THE BENEFITS IT'S 5,000, 2000, WHATEVER YOU DID NOT VOTE, MR. OTTO, ON A SEPARATE THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST STATED EARLIER THAT YOU VOTED ON A SEVERANCE.

IT WAS NOT A SERVANT.

IT WASN'T STATED IN THAT MOTION CLEARLY THAT IT WAS A RESIGNATION AND THAT IT WAS A CONSULTATION FEE.

NO I'M SAYING, CAUSE YOU DID SAY THAT YOU VOTED ON MONDAY NIGHT FOR THAT.

IT WAS A SEVERANCE.

THE MOTION WAS CLEAR WORDING, WHETHER NO, THE MOTION THAT SAY RESIGNATION, YOU HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY MONDAY BEFORE YOU VOTED YES.

TO DISCUSS THIS.

AND DID YOU, DID YOU COME OUT AND SAY, I, THIS IS NOT A SEVERANCE.

THIS IS STATING OF RESIGNATION.

I WILL GLADLY.

UM, THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR IT BECAUSE I JUST, THIS WE'RE PLAYING WORD GAMES AND IT'S NOT BECOMING PETTY FIRST.

SO YEAH, THERE WAS NOTHING FOR US TO LOOK AT REVIEW.

WE HEARD ONE THING ONE TIME, AND UNLESS WE LISTENED TO A HUNDRED PERCENT TO THAT, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE MAYOR CANNOT MAKE A MOTION.

SO HE COULDN'T MAKE A MOTION.

WE SOLD NOTHING.

NORMALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF PAPER THAT WE CAN READ.

AND I JUST CAME OUT OF THE MEETING, ASSUMING THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.

HE MADE COMMENTS AGAIN.

HE MADE THE COMMENTS THAT HE MADE, BUT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC MOTION.

WHAT WAS, WAS THAT CONSIDERED A SPECIFIC MOTION? WE OFTEN HAVE SOMEONE PUSH IN AND THEN ASK SOMEONE TO MAKE THE MOTION.

YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE THAT IN SOME CASES IT CAN COME FROM, BUT NOT ONLY THERE ON PAPER, YOU'VE READ IT OFF ALREADY.

RIGHT? WELL, IF IT'S PART OF A FORMAL AGENDA, IT'S SOMETHING COMING OUT OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TYPICALLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREPARED AHEAD OF TIME ON THE AGENDA, JUST BECAUSE IT, AND YOU GERMANE TO THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND USUALLY THAT'S BECAUSE WE ALL AGREE.

WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THINGS.

I THINK MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT JUST NEEDS TO CLEAR IT UP.

NOT JUST WITH YOU WITH THIS.

MY ISSUE IS THAT ALL OF YOU EIGHT TO ZERO VOTED.

WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.

AND DID YOU DISCUSS, UM, RICHARD, THE SATURDAY MEETING AND THAT IS ACTIVE? NO.

SO YOU KNEW AHEAD OF TIME, THIS WAS COMING, YOU HAD ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME.

YOU DID NOT HAVE THIS DOCUMENTATION, I GUESS, AS A RESIDENT, I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU DID A VOTE WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION AND NOW YOU'RE, BUT NOW YOU'RE COMING BACK TO NOW, I SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE ABSTAINED OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID, NO, THIS IS NOT THE PROPER TIME TO DO THIS VOTE.

I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IS I'M HEARING ALL THIS STUFF.

I'M HEARING THAT I'M FINDING OUT THAT RICHARD KNEW THIS AHEAD OF TIME.

I'M HEARING THIS DISCUSSION.

I'M HEARING FIVE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THIS MEETING, OF COURSE.

BUT EVERYBODY COMES OUT OF THIS MEETING WITH AN EIGHT TO ZERO VOTE TO MOVE ON WITH THIS.

AND NOW WE'RE IN A LEGAL BINDING AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY.

AND THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM TO DISCUSS THIS.

SO THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS.

AND I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU VOTED.

AND NOW EVERYBODY NOW YOU'RE SAYING NO.

WOULD YOU, I MEAN, WOULD YOU HONESTLY NOW, WOULD YOU GO BACK AND SAY I WOULD, I SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED.

YES, I SHOULDN'T HAVE, BECAUSE I WAS TRUSTING THE CONVERSATION COMING OUT OF, AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT TRUST.

HONESTLY, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE CAME OUT OF THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE VOTING, WHAT WE WERE VOTING TO DO.

ONE THING, WE DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

I MEAN, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT ADD LINES IN IRON AGREEMENT.

I AM, I AM JUST FRUSTRATED THAT WE'RE GOING NOW, WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS LITTLE PETTY BACK

[03:25:01]

AND FORTH STUFF.

AND AS A RESIDENT, I'VE HEARD OF THIS STUFF FOR YEARS AND IT NEEDS TO STOP.

AND THAT'S YOU TOO, GLEN, NOT JUST THEM, EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY ON THAT DYESS.

IT NEEDS TO STOP AS A RESIDENT.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU AS MY PERSONAL THING, I'M TIRED.

I'M TIRED OF EVERY TIME HEARING THIS BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH GETS ON FACEBOOK.

IT GETS ON EVERYTHING IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.

JUST RIGHT NOW.

IT'S TIME.

IT'S NOT JUST, IT MATTER.

I'M GETTING ON FACEBOOK OR NOT.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT IT NEEDS TO STOP.

WE'VE HEARD THIS ALL TONIGHT.

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING NOW ON WHAT, THREE HOURS OF PETTINESS.

NOW WE ARE W WE GOT TO GET AN AGREEMENT.

SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST TIRED.

I'M TIRED OF THOSE BACK AND FORTH.

AND I JUST, I JUST DISAGREE THAT YOU VOTED YES.

WITHOUT, AND I FIND THAT CONCERNING THAT ANYBODY VOTES YES.

WITHOUT HAVING THE DOCUMENTATION IN FRONT OF THEM, WITHOUT HAVING THESE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE.

I MEAN, YOU EVEN SAID THAT YOU WERE VOTING THINKING IT WAS A SEVERANCE AND THE MOTION CLEARLY STATED RESIGNATION.

SO THAT IS JUST MY CON MY QUESTION IS I WANT IT.

AND YOU ANSWERED IT.

I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED NO DOCUMENTATION.

WELL, I, I NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK FOR A, A LETTER OF, UM, UH, RESIGN RESIGNATION LETTER BECAUSE WE NEVER DISCUSSED HIM RESIGNING.

I NEVER ASKED FOR THE, UH, THE, THE, UH, THE AGREEMENT, THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST.

THAT WAS, I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE ASSIGNING THE ATTORNEY TO GO DO THOSE THINGS FOR US.

IT WAS NON-EXISTENT THAT NIGHT.

HOW COULD I SEE IT WHEN IT DIDN'T EXIST? AGAIN, THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION DIDN'T EXIST.

W I WOULD NEVER THINK TO ASK TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WE NEVER EVEN SPOKE ABOUT.

WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT A RESIGNATION.

WE TALKED ABOUT LETTING THE CITY MANAGER GO.

THERE WAS NEVER DISCUSSION ABOUT WAS NOT GIVEN THREE OPTIONS.

AND ONE INCLUDED A RESIGNATION.

NO.

OH, YOU'RE LAUGHING, BUT NO ONE ELSE WAS THERE.

IT WAS JUST US IN THERE.

I JUST HEARD EVERYBODY WHEN THEY WERE POLLING SAID THAT THEY WERE GIVING THREE OPTIONS OF THIS IS HEARSAY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, BECAUSE NO, THIS WASN'T RECORDED.

AND WE CAN'T.

I CAN TELL, I CAN SAY, THIS IS MY SIDE.

MR. CAN SAY, THIS IS HIS SIDE.

THE SPEAKER CAN SAY, THIS IS HER SIDE.

NOBODY HAS, SO THIS IS HEARSAY.

I AM TELLING YOU THE CONVERSATION DID NOT LEAD TO, WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION.

THE CONVERSATION WAS WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF HIM.

AND THE CONVERSATION ON SATURDAY WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO ROB SHOMER HAS TO GO.

WE NEED TO GET RID OF, OKAY.

SO WHEN THEY MADE THE MOTIONS, THIS MINE, HIS RESIGNATION, AND THEN EXCEPT THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, AND YOU VOTED YES.

PERFECTLY HONEST.

I GOTTA BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU.

I DID NOT LISTEN TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE VERBIAGE AT THE TIME.

THAT'S MY SPARK.

AND IT WASN'T WRITTEN ON LEGISLATION.

AND YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO THIS COMPLETELY.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

AFTER THE VOTE COULD HAVE REPEATED WHAT HE SAID.

I MEAN, THAT IS MY CONCERN WITH ALL OF THIS.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD.

I KNOW YOU KIND OF, YEAH.

YOU SAID SO MOVED.

YOU DIDN'T REPEAT THE MOTION.

YOU SAID, SO MOVED AGAIN.

I HAD TRUST IN WHAT THE, WE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING, BECAUSE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION TO THAT POINT WAS ABOUT THAT.

ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT WASN'T TUESDAY MORNING.

I MEAN, AS A CITIZEN WATCHING THIS HAPPENING, I, I, I'M SORRY.

I'VE LOST TRUST IN MY COUNCIL RIGHT NOW.

FOR THIS.

AND I'M, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I JUST YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING ON LEGISLATION THINKING THAT YOU'RE TRUSTING.

I MEAN, I'M HEARING FIVE DIFFERENT, SIX DIFFERENT STORIES NOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.

EXACTLY.

SO IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY RIGHT.

I HEAR FROM THE MAYOR, IT'S LIKE, DID HE NOT AGREE THAT IT WAS A FORCED RESIGNATION? I MEAN, I, YEAH, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO YOU'RE OKAY.

IF WE COULD SAY WE'VE GIVEN HIM $50,000, AS LONG AS WE CAN SAY YOU'RE FIRED ROB SCHUMMER YOU WERE OKAY.

I JUST, MY LAST WORD IS JUST DO BETTER, DO BETTER AS STEWARDS OF THIS CITY THAT WE HAVE ELECTED YOU TO CONTINUE TO BE HONEST.

LIKE TO DEFER TO THE LAW DIRECTOR.

MR. THOMAS, CAN WE JUST GET A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON? AS FAR AS, YES.

I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY.

I'D

[03:30:01]

UH, SO HE CAN EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS.

CAUSE THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

THERE'S THE RESOLUTION.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE FIRST READING OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPROPRIATE THEM.

YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO CLEAN UP A PROPER ACTION.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

WELL, OKAY.

I THINK WHEN I SENT THE EMAIL, WHEN I SAID TO MR. MCDONALD WAS, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE AS THE MAYOR, I WASN'T COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT OR THREE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

THAT WAS MY EMAIL TO MR. MACDONALD, AS FAR AS WHAT I THOUGHT WE NEED TO BRING THIS BACK.

SO I WOULD LIKE IT NOW ON THE RECORD, UH, ANOTHER, UH, VOTE.

SO EVERYBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

THEY'RE VOTING ON THIS.

I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO BRING US BACK.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL GOING TO THE NEWS AND SAYING, THEY'RE CONFUSED.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID WELL, WITHOUT IT BEING VOTED ON PUBLICLY, THE WAY YOU HAD REQUESTED IT.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS, THIS MANNER IS BACK.

SO, MR. MCDONALD'S, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

JUST DID, UH, IF THIS IS SIMPLY OPEN YOUR WORDS OUT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT A MATTER OF YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS DONE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, WHICH IS OUR TYPICAL PROCESS, WHICH WE WOULD HAVE A RESOLUTION AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO IT, A VOTE, PUBLIC DEBATE, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

AND IT WAS YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS.

AND SO TO GET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AS TO WHAT, WHO WAS VOTING ON WHAT, AND HAVE ANYBODY WHO HAD ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS TO BE ABLE TO RECTIFY THAT ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MR. MACDONALD, THERE HAS BEEN EMOTION AND THERE HAS BEEN A SECOND.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE DISCUSSED AND DEBATED MR. ROGERS, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MS. BAKER, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

MR. OR MS. HAYNES MAJOR, MAJOR HAYNES.

OH YES.

COME, COME, COME TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.

BUT YOU'VE TOLD US THAT IT'S ALREADY LEGALLY BINDING.

SO WHY ARE WE VOTING IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IT'S ALREADY BEEN LEGALLY? YES.

AND THE REASON WHY I ASKED FOR THIS LEGISLATION TO COME BACK, BECAUSE WE HAD THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY VOTED ON.

I WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY NOW WHAT THEY VOTED ON AND GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT CLAIM FOR THE RECORD AND IN A PUBLIC PUBLIC VOTE.

ONCE MORE, AS FAR AS LEGALLY, WE'VE ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT OF A HUNDRED PERCENT.

YES, BUT NOW, BUT IF THERE'S COUNSELORS WHO WOULD PREFER TO VOTE, NO, THIS IS, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

THIS IS MARTIN.

WHAT MR. MCDONALD JUST SAID, WAS THERE NO RESOLUTION PRIOR TO TONIGHT? NO.

TH AND AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE RESOLUTION PRIOR THAT THIS IS, ALTHOUGH IT ISN'T TYPICAL.

IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAS DONE IN THE PAST.

AND, AND THAT'S THE RESOLUTION THAT I BROUGHT UP REGARDING THE EXTRA QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS TILL I, MR. SCHIRMER, TO GO OUT AND DO WHATEVER HE NEEDED TO DO.

AND NONE OF THAT EVER HAD TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

SO WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST.

WITHOUT A RESOLUTION, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE CHARTER SAID FOR A, THERE HAD TO BE A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, UM, MR. MCDONALD, THAT WAS WHY WE DID ALL THESE RESOLUTIONS WAS BECAUSE THAT FOR THESE CONTRACTS AND THESE APPROPRIATIONS, THAT THAT'S THE TYPICAL WAY TO DO IT.

CHARTER SAYS ACTION OF COUNCIL SHALL BE BY ORDINANCE RESOLUTION.

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE TONIGHT.

WE HAD A MOTION.

MR. ROGERS, WOULD YOU READ

NOW MOTIONS ARE TYPICALLY DONE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SMALLER THINGS, NOT THIS TYPE OF THING.

HOWEVER, THE CHARTER GOES ON TO SAY, NO ACTION OF COUNCIL SHALL BE INVALIDATED MERELY BECAUSE OF THE FORMER STYLE THEREOF FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE FIVE OF THIS CHARTER, SINCE IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE PEOPLE BY THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER TO REQUIRE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE FIVE OF THIS CHARTER, ARTICLE FIVE BEGINS THE LEGISLATION.

MR. ROGERS, DID YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MS. BAKER? YES.

AND THE MOTION DOES CARRY FIVE TO THREE.

[03:35:03]

[ An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2020-O-2453 By Making Supplemental Appropriations For Expenses Of The City Of Huber Heights, Ohio For The Period Beginning January 1, 2021 And Ending December 31, 2021. (first reading)]

ITEM THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA? I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

ITEM THREE, B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER TWO ZERO TWO ZERO DASH OH DASH TWO FOUR FIVE THREE.

BY MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPENSES IN THE CITY OF YOUR RIGHTS, OHIO FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING, JANUARY 1ST, 2021.

AND ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 2021 AT THE FIRST THREE.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

SO I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS IN ORDER TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE EMOTION AND IT WOULDN'T NEED TO PASS BY SIX VOTES.

UH, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE ARE SIX VOTES THIS EVENING BASED ON WHAT THE PREVIOUS VOTE WAS.

SO AT THAT POINT, UNLESS SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT ME, UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A ADDITIONAL SPECIAL MEETING TOMORROW PRIOR TO THE WORK SESSION TO HEAR THIS AT THE SECOND READING AND THEN HAVE A VOTE ON THE APPROPRIATION.

YOU COULD ALSO HAVE A MOTION TO WAIT, AND IF IT FAILS TO GET THE SIX MONTHS, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A SECOND.

SO IS THERE SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE OR ARE WE OKAY HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING TOMORROW TO HEAR THE SECOND READING MR. HILL, THERE'S A MOTION TO WAVE.

IS THERE A SECOND HOBBLE? SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. WEBB.

ANY DISCUSSION ON WAVING THE SECOND READING MR. ROGERS, MR. CAMPBELL.

MRS. BERG.

SO HAVE YOU GUYS, YES.

THE SECOND READING FAILS FIVE TO THREE.

SO IT IS NOW NINE 17.

SO YOU HAVE TO DO BOTH DON'T YOU.

IT JUST GOES ON BACKWARDS FOR A SECOND REASON.

MY BEDROOM.

YEP.

SO WE'LL JUST MOVE THIS TO A SECOND READING.

SO IT SAYS IT'S NINE 17.

WE DON'T HAVE 24 HOURS BEFORE THE WORK SESSION TOMORROW.

THIS WILL NEED TO BE AN EMERGENCY SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO HEAR THE SECOND READING OF THAT PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL.

UM, SO WE WILL DISTRIBUTE THAT FIRST, SECOND IN THE MORNING, DISTRIBUTE THAT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING.

AND WE WILL AGAIN, CONVENE TOMORROW AT FIVE 30.

MAJOR.

YOU SAID WITH THE FIRST VOTE THAT YOU WENT THROUGH, IT WAS A FIVE TO THREE.

SO IT SHOULDN'T HAVE FOLLOWED.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIX, RIGHT? THE FIVE TO THREE SIMPLE MAJORITY PASSES LEGISLATION.

WE WOULD NEED SIX, A SUPER MAJORITY TO WAIVE A SECOND READING.