Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

YEAH,

[1. Call The Meeting To Order - Mayor Jeff Gore]

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ATTENDING THIS SAFE HUBER HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL SESSION.

UH, TODAY IS MARCH 15TH, 2021, AND WE'RE GETTING STARTED AT FIVE 40.

WE HAD SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH, UM, UH, COUNCIL.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET LOGGED ON TO THE MEETING.

SO, UH, WE ARE GETTING STARTED ABOUT 10 MINUTES LATE, BUT IT IS FIVE 40 AND I'M OFFICIALLY CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER MR. ROGERS, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MR. SHAW HERE, MS. BAKER, MR. CAMPBELL HERE.

THIS IS BURJ HERE, MR. OTTO HERE.

MR. LYONS, MR. HILL, ERIC.

MR. WEBB HERE, AMERICORPS HERE.

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS NEW BUSINESS UNDER CITY COUNCIL ITEM A MR.

[ A Resolution Accepting The Resignation Of And Ratifying And Approving A Consulting Agreement With Robert Schommer. (first reading)]

ROGERS, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ITEM THREE EIGHT ITEM THREE.

HEY, A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF AND RATIFYING AND APPROVING A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT SCHUMMER OR THE FIRST READING IT.

THANK YOU, MR. ROGERS.

UH, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW IS DEFER TO MR. MACDONALD AND HAVE MR. MCDONALD'S KIND OF EXPLAINED THE PROCESS AND, UH, WHAT THE, KIND OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION IS MR. MAGELLAN, IF YOU WOULD.

AND, UM, TWO FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS WERE DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED.

ONE ROD SHOMER WOULD RESIGN TOO.

IT WAS A LIVE STREAM ON, IN THE BACKGROUND.

COULD YOU PLEASE TURN IT OFF FOR THE BACKGROUND? I CAN'T TELL YET, BUT I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, SO, WELL, I'M NOT HEARING, I'M NOT HEARING THAT FEEDBACK NOW, SO I THINK MIGHT BE OKAY, MR. MCDONALD'S YOU WOULD MIND STARTING OVER.

I'D APPRECIATE THAT, PLEASE.

SO NOT A PROBLEM ON MARCH 8TH, TWO FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS WERE DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED.

ONE ROB SHOMER WOULD RESIGN AND TWO, THE CITY WOULD PAY 150,000 FOR A CONSULTING AGREEMENT.

COUNSEL UNANIMOUSLY DIRECTED ME TO GET THE RESIGNATION AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE.

MR. SCHIRMER RESIGNED, THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INTERIM CITY MANAGERS QUESTIONS ARE ROSE AS TO THE PROCESS.

THE PROCESS WAS NOT TYPICAL, BUT IT WAS LEGAL AND THE AGREEMENT IS BINDING BECAUSE OF ALL THE ATTENTION.

THIS PROCESS RECEIVED THE MARIJUANA TO PROCEED WITH LITIGATION.

AND I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT THE EXISTING AGREEMENT IS A BINDING OBLIGATION OF THE CITY.

WHILE I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS LEGISLATION PASSES JUST FOR CONSISTENCY PURPOSES, WHETHER IT DOES OR DOESN'T IS IRRELEVANT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL LEGAL BINDING OKAY.

AGREEMENT.

THERE'S NOTHING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE.

THANK YOU, MR. MCDONALD'S.

SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON, UH, FOR EMOTION IN A SECOND, I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE DOES KNOW, UH, ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK.

YOU'LL CERTAINLY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

UH, THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT PROCESS BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE, AND THE SPECIAL SESSION THAT WE'RE IN, BUT EVERYONE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

UH, I BELIEVE WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF EMAILS HAVE COME THROUGH AND MR. ROGERS WILL READ

[00:05:01]

THOSE AND, UH, CERTAINLY I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS.

UM, BUT THE, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW OF GETTING A, UH, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION REGARDING ITEM THREE AND THAT RESOLUTION, AND THEN WE WOULD OFFER DISCUSSION AS WE, AS WE ALWAYS DO.

UH, ONCE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PHASE, UM, I'D HAVE A, I DO HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO THE COMMUNITY AND I WILL.

UM, I'M ACTUALLY, I PLAN ON GOING DOWN TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAKING TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN ONCE THAT, UH, ONCE I READ THAT STATEMENT, THEN CERTAINLY, UH, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION BY, UH, COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

AND THEN WE CAN FINISH UP WITH ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE, UH, FOR MYSELF OR MR. MCDONALD REGARDING THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS IN THE NMC VOTED ON AT THE MARCH 8TH MEETING.

UH, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN READ.

I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS EVENING.

UH, I WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT.

MR. CAMPBELL HAS A MOTION TO ADOPT.

IS THERE A SECOND, MR. WEBB? SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, NOW FOR THE DISCUSSION PORTION, AND THIS IS WHERE WE WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT I HAD, UH, OUTLINED BEFORE.

REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING THIS EVENING.

AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, UH, APPRECIATE YOU TUNING IN.

I KNOW THIS IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS, DIFFICULT TIME THE CITY IS GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, AND I CERTAINLY NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF KEEPING ANY OF THIS DISCUSSION OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE, BUT WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW A PROCESS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S, WHAT'S GOTTEN US TO THIS POINT.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I DO HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I WANT TO READ AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO A FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT ROB SHOMER IS MY FRIEND.

I BUILD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ROB OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

ONE BASED ON MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THE JOBS THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE LAST WEEKEND ARE UNDOUBTEDLY THE MOST AGONIZING EVENTS I'VE EVER HAD TO MANAGE PROFESSIONALLY.

YES, I BEGAN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT MOVING THE CITY IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IN REGARD TO THE CITY MANAGER.

NOW, THAT BEING SAID, ROB WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY FOR OVER 24 YEARS, WORKING HIS WAY FROM A PATROLMAN TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE, TO AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER, TO BECOMING OUR CITY MANAGER.

I HOPE I CAN CONVEY TO YOU THAT JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT WAS TIME TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, DOES NOT MEAN THAT ROB'S CONTRIBUTIONS WEREN'T VALUABLE.

AND HIS FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS CITY, TO THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER IN A CONSULTING ROLE ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE AS WELL.

ROB HAS INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS WORTH OF DEVELOPMENT.

ROB HAS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE DEVELOPERS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS.

ROB WAS THE SOLE CITY EMPLOYEE THAT DEALT WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ROSE MUSIC CENTER.

AND IF WE HOPE TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SEASON THIS YEAR ROB'S RELATIONSHIP WITH MIKE SMITH, THE CEO OF MIMI WILL BE INSTRUMENTAL IN THAT TRANSITION.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT.

THE COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVED LAST MONDAY NIGHT AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND LATER I WOULD EVEN ASK OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER, MR. MCCALSKY, UH, WHAT ROLE HE WOULD EXPECT ROB TO PLAY IN THIS FUTURE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT.

SO IT IS MY INTENTION TO ADDRESS ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS THIS EVENING AND YOUR CONCERNS.

AND WE WILL DO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE.

I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

HOWEVER, THIS COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT WE DO NOT DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS PUBLICLY.

SO I WON'T BE DISCUSSING ANY OF THE DETAILS BEHIND THE SEPARATION OF ROB AND THE CITY, BUT I STAND BEHIND THAT DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THIS COUNCIL BEHIND ME AND AN EIGHT TO ZERO VOTE.

WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO EVERYONE LISTENING NOW IS I DO BELIEVE THAT ALL THE CONFUSION THAT HAS RISEN OUT OF THIS HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT CHEAP POLITICS AND GAMESMANSHIP.

I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE THAT THE CONFUSION THAT HAS BEEN CREATED IS BY MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL WHO ARE ON THE BALLOT.

THIS MAY AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND MYSELF PERSONALLY, OR THE ACTIONS THAT THIS COUNCIL VOTED ON.

[00:10:01]

I PROMISED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN, AND I WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE THEM EMBARRASSMENT WHILE DOING THIS JOB.

SO I REFUSE TO GET IN A POLITICAL TIT FOR TAT WITH MY POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE THE MAYOR OF HUBER HEIGHTS.

I AM THE MAYOR.

AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROVING, THOSE ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSE THAT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST ME OVER NEWS REPORTS AND MY MISQUOTES AND SOCIAL MEDIA AND VIDEOS.

I HAVE A MUCH BIGGER RESPONSIBILITY THAN THAT.

I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE REPUTATION OF OUR CITY, KEEPING THE PEACE.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HELPING OUR CITY HEAL THROUGH TOUGH TIMES.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS AND WE WILL BE BETTER FOR IT.

I TALKED TO MY OWN CHILDREN ABOUT LEADERSHIP, AND I'VE TALKED TO MY STUDENTS IN GOVERNMENT CLASS ABOUT LEADERSHIP.

I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT LEADERSHIP OF MY PASTOR, MY PRINCIPALS AT SCHOOL I'VE EVEN DISCUSSED LEADERSHIP WITH MY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. BESARA.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE WITH MY DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE CAN DEBATE THOSE DECISIONS PUBLICLY AS IT SHOULD BE.

I KNEW WHEN I MADE THIS CHOICE AND TOOK MY OATH, THAT I'D GET PUNCHED AND BEAT UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THAT'S OKAY, PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE.

AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I CAN TELL YOU STANDING HERE TONIGHT THAT EVERY DECISION THAT I'VE MADE HAS BEEN BASED ON WHAT I THOUGHT WAS BEST FOR EACH AND EVERY RESIDENT OF THE CITY AND ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I WILL TURN THIS PODIUM AROUND AND MR. SCHOMER WILL, I'M SORRY.

MR. ROGERS WILL REVIEW, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED OR THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO ASK QUESTIONS AND YOU CERTAINLY FEEL FREE.

THAT'S SURROUNDING THE SEPARATION OF ROB, BUT ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROCESS.

AND THEN YOU WANT TO KNOW WE'LL ANSWER ALL THAT.

THANK YOU.

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]

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

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

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.

YES.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

[00:20:05]

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.

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.

RIGHT.

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.

YES.

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.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

YEAH.

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]

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.

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.

OKAY.

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

ALL RIGHT.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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

YES.

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.

OKAY.

OKAY.

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]

MY OWN STUFF AND I WORKED FOR RUSH PACKAGE DELIVERY.

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.

CORRECT.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR QUESTIONS.

NEXT UP.

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

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

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]

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.

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

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

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

OKAY.

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]

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

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

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]

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

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