It's 10:00 a.m. I'll call this International Falls Special City Council meeting to order. Please rise. We'll say the pledge. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Excuse me for the roll call. It can be noted
councelor Holden is absent for this meeting. We will move to new business which the first item of new business is Mr. Todd Ogula who [clears throat] would like to address the council in regard to
employment benefits. >> Mayor, could I just provide an update on how we got here today? >> Please. >> Thank you. >> Um, before proceeding with the item, I wanted to provide a brief explanation for the record regarding why this matter is being addressed in open session today
rather than closed and wasn't addressed at Monday's meeting. I also want to acknowledge that delaying the the topic has caused inconvenience and I sincerely apologize to Mr. Ogdula and the members of the council for that disruption and
delay. I believe that step was necessary however given the lack of information provided prior to the meeting which prevented pro prevented proper legal review and preparation. At the time of Monday's meeting,
the only information I had was that Mr. Ogula intended to come before the council to request a motion or action which requires council response that [snorts] the issue appeared to be employment related and there was reference to a contract. No other background details, documents or
explanation of the substance was provided in advance. During the meeting, when I attempted to ask clarifying questions, including whether it involved an employment contract, the only response I received was, "If I'm allowed to finish, we concede." Without that substantive information to determine the
nature of the request, it was not possible for me to assess the legal framework that would govern that discussion [music] or what statutory obligations might be triggered. At the very least, I would have had to advise the council to wait to respond to any request made and not make any
statements until I had the opportunity to sort out what can and cannot be shared. In short, the delay would have been inevitable. After subsequently having the opportunity to review the information that Mr. Ogula provided, discuss the matter with the mayor, administration, and the city's labor
attorney, it's now clear to me that the matter is limited to interpretation of an existing city of International Falls policy, no employment contracts. Standing alone, that interpretation does not require a closed [music] session. I was incorrect.
provided that the discussion is carefully limited not to include private personnel data, which I don't believe it will. The council has now had the opportunity to receive advice from myself and the labor attorney on how to respond, what's appropriate, what's not. Again, I want to apologize to Mr. Ogdula
for this delay and other members for the interruption and delay in his address to the council and appreciate the opportunity over the last several days to review the matter and provide guidance to the council so that they may appropriately respond to Mr. Ogula's request today. >> Thank you, Chelsea. [cough]
[clears throat] I would also um add and like to address uh to the council that the city benefits policy which is approved by the city council I believe back in 2023.
it that that time frame uh is a public document that lays out the framework of employment. Um on December 1st at 3:30 p.m. I had met with [clears throat]
the proper channels within the city that did not include Mrs. Nelson and asked uh for an explanation to the city council um how things like benefits and how things were going to be handled within
that policy and asked for a special city council meeting with the labor attorney so that we could all know what our obligations are to our hardworking staff and uh did not receive a response.
With that being said, I believe um if Mr. Ogula would like to come forward, he is certainly welcome to. Um if you would not like to come forward, you don't have to. Um is that something you would wish to do, Mr. Ogula?
>> Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Please come forward. [snorts] >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. council. I appreciate the uh uh response from Chelsea. I appreciate that and I appreciate everybody coming here today. I know it's a cold winter day and and
it's a lot of trouble setting these up and taking time out of everybody's schedule. So, I I really appreciate it a lot. Um and yeah, it was never my intention to bring up any personal information. Um I I don't think this is necessary, but I I
brought it, so I might as well hand it out. Would would you please hand a copy to to Chelsea first? Thank you. >> Sorry, I thought this would be stapled, but um >> and Mrs. Nelson, would it be appropriate? >> Is it the same as last? Oh, no. This is
just again it doesn't seem necessary now, but this is just pointing out that uh this is just pointing out that sick leave compensation is not is is public data because it's compensation related and related to employer paid benefits
which according to you know statute is public information. But >> and my understanding again to Chelsea is that if the personnel data relates to you, you can opt to discuss it. Is that correct, Chelsea? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So I Okay. Um I have new copies of my remarks, but uh you probably already have a copy, so I won't distribute them unless anybody wants one. >> Oh, I'm good. >> Okay. >> For the record. Okay. [snorts] So, [clears throat] let me start from
the beginning. Um, well, [clears throat] it's true about Walt's wife's baking. We all love that. So, I I really uh wish I could have more of that today. But I'll continue my remarks about where they were. I left off. So, I'm here to ask for consistency, not sympathy, not
drama, and not conflict. Here's the contradiction in the simplest terms. I was told that when you leave the city, you do not get paid out for sick time. He had two employees who left around my departure, one before me and one after, were paid out for sick time. Both of those things cannot be true at
the same time. Either the rule is not what I was told or it is being applied inconsistently. Either way, it must be corrected. So, I'm asking for a specific remedy this morning, a motion directing administration to apply the salaried employee sick leave payout policy
consistently and to process my payout by a date certain. Let the record reflect what this is and what it is not. It's not a debate about whether anyone deserves anything based on popularity, personality, or position. This is about whether the city has a
written policy it intends to apply consistently, yes or no. Now, I'll lay out this matter as plainly as possible like exhibits because it's pretty straightforward. Exhibit A is the written HR response. Before I left city employment, I asked
HR in writing by email whether sick leave would be paid out when an employee leaves employment. I received a written response saying no. Exhibit B, the controlling policy sentence. The salaried benefits policy states employees acrew sick leave and
may accumulated up to 180 working days and that employees who had time of retirement including including early voluntary retirement have unused accumulated sick leave have the option of taking accumulated sick leave in cash up to the cap.
That sentence matters because it creates a valuable earned benefit. In practice, the way a separation is classified becomes the key that unlocks [snorts] a cash payout. Exhibit C u is the balance. My acred
sick leave balance was real, tracked, documented, near separation. I am not asking for anything beyond what the written policy permits. So where's the problem? The core problem is that the gatekeeping label retirement early voluntary has been applied
inconsistently and non-transparently. If it is being used as a switch, it cannot be flipped for some and withheld for others. Especially when someone asks in good faith and is told flatly, "No." [snorts] I want to be careful here and keep this
factual. I am not here to argue about PAR. That's the Public Employee Retirement Association. Um, but I do need to say one thing clearly so that the public understands the issue. The city appears to be using retirement as an internal administrative label that controls whether sick time is paid out.
That label has been handled differently for different people. That is the inconsistency I'm asking you to correct. And I'll add one point that is plain on its face. I am 57 years old. Retirement is not a rhetorical label for me. I am
literally old enough to begin receiving PAR benefits. I called them on December 3rd just 12 days ago. Well, let me correct that. Um, I called them on December 3rd when I became concerned. Whatever anyone thinks of retirement
should mean in ordinary conversation, the policy uses it as a gateway to a cash out. So, it must be applied by a consistent rule, not by improvisation. A policy that can be activated by designation for some employees but withheld from others, especially when
asked directly, is not a policy. It is discretion wearing a mask. Now, one sentence of human reality without asking for pity. These decisions do not land in a vacuum. Earned compensation matters when you are caring for family or planning the next step for
your household. In my case, that includes caring for my mother who has dementia and trying to keep a stable path forward for my 19-year-old son who's sitting right back there and is supposed to be working right now for a local construction firm. So, tonight I'm asking for the most
practical remedy. The city has recently processed a sick leave cash out for another separating employee. So, we all know that this is administratively doable. In fact, on December 1st, the council considered a lastminute motion that effectively converted a resignation
into a retirement designation for the purpose of allowing that payout. If the administration takes the policy, the retirement designation is strictly required to administer the policy. Then I'm asking the council to direct that same limited designation for my
separation solely to apply the policy consistently. pass a motion directing administration to apply the salaried employee sick leave payout provision consistently and transparently. And specifically, direct administration and payroll to calculate and pay my acred
sick leave cash out consistent with the written policy retirement early voluntary up to the 180day cap using my eligible final rate of pay and issue payment within 10 business days or another agreed upon certain date within the next month. I'm not requesting a
study, a delay, a closed door process or a committee. The inconsistency is the problem. The correction is straightforward. Fairness is transparent. So, I have a brief addendum that I wanted to add just because I was asked about it by a few people about, you
know, help the IT contract I signed to help the city. Uh, when I resigned, I made a written offer to assess assist the city with the IT transition. I also signed an IT services agreement with the city at $50 per hour, a modest rate, so there would be documented continuity if
needed. After that, despite that documented path, I was effectively frozen out rather than utilized. Shortly afterward, the city pursued an emergency IT contract at a much higher rate. Um, ironically, with people who are my friends, and they're they're very good people, so you're in good hands.
This is not an attack on them. It's a governance point. Bypassing a ready documented lowerc cost continuity plan and then paying more later is the same kind of inconsistency that creates avoidable risk. And when help was needed, I still stepped in. On November 29th, I went in
for free to help them with with a service outage caused by a server malfunction. Um, and just as u I mean I I I'm so busy honestly I I was just doing this to help the city. So just so it's clear. Um, that's why I'm asking the council
tonight to insist on consistency, apply written policies uniformly, follow documented processes, and stop improvising outcomes after the fact. Mr. Mayor and councel, thank you for your time. I intend to remain engaged in the life of the community and whether as a private citizen or whatever capacity may
be most needed in the future. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. and please remain. Um discussion for the for the council. [clears throat] We do have the opportunity
um to consider paying Mr. Ogula his sick time that he has acred up until the effective last day of his employment. Um I would make a motion to do that.
I would like to add that I'm concerned why this happened and I think that that's the council discussion to follow. Um but if there's support for that motion um I would entertain it at this time.
>> I'll second. >> Thank you, Councelor Kaylor. Discussion is is open on the topic. >> Please what date did you resign? I believe my last day was October 21st. >> And did you follow up with uh Sherry on
after she told you no on a resignation you do not receive those benefits? >> I took her response at face value and I was so busy with my job transition that um I I did not I I took her
communication at face value. So, you didn't look into it to see that if you retired, you would receive the benefits. [snorts] >> I'm simply asking for consistency here, Mr. Council Wgner. Um, >> I'm just asking you you didn't follow up
anymore. You didn't ask Betty or anybody else about about it, right? >> Uh, that's correct. I I took retirement to mean leaving the workforce. Um, I I wasn't I didn't I didn't follow up with a lawyer because I didn't realize that
that [clears throat] the gatekeeping label was possible to apply to me even though I was not leaving the workforce. So, >> well, you wouldn't need a lawyer, but nobody said you have to leave the workforce when you retire. Lots of people retire and find another job. That's every day. So, um, that's not
unusual. I'm sure that's glaringly obvious. That happens a lot. So >> my question is if you just followed it or not, >> followed up on it or not. >> I did not follow up. I took I took the communication at face value that it was
not possible to uh receive sick time payouts as when you leave city employment. So I took the communication at face value. Councelor Wagner. Councelor Wagner, if I may, the I I think that the the issue here from my standpoint is that I don't think that he
has to take [clears throat] if he was told that the answer is no. Why wouldn't he assume that the answer is no? Then we have a cloudy situation in which on December [clears throat] 1st
the city council wouldn't approve an agenda and then a resignation was changed to a retirement that wasn't even on the agenda. I'd like to know how that happened and if there was an open meeting law
violation potentially. And so when I'm reading through the the weeds here is that what did that all mean? And so I think that that adds some murkiness to it from
Mr. Ojela's shoes. But um to your point um I I don't see why I don't see why you would have to ask if you were told no if it was being applied
fairly. >> I we believe we have this information in the packet. Uh a reminder we do have motions on the floor and um this is open right now, right? Discussion. >> Yes, it is. So then did
um maybe Sherry needs to let people know it's in the policy that in retirement you got it, but you didn't. That's where I'm going with this. >> Right. >> We're in agreement. [clears throat] >> Um there should have been a follow-up to assist the employee with this is what
the policy says and [music] this is the way you go with it. >> Thank you. >> So that it's clear, >> right? >> That would have cleared it up right there. Absolutely. >> Councelor Buller, >> I think our policy is a problem. It's unclear and our past practice has been
to pay, retire, and [music] not resign has been past practice. But the policy is so vague and so unclear that I think Mr. Joel has a a very very good case here against us or not against us I
shouldn't say but for himself that we need to pay it and then go into the policy and clarify this for anything in the future to make sure that this doesn't come up again. Thank you, Councelor Buller. >> And to the part of the open meeting in December 1st, there was no open meeting
violation. The chief of police did reach out to me cuz he's afraid that his updated uh resignation letter would not be put on the agenda. And I told him, well, if it wasn't put on the agenda, I would motion
it as a retirement, not resignation. And that was a personal conversation between me and him. And and up until all this, I had no idea about the difference to be quite honest. And I agree if someone's
worked here and they resigned, they should get their accumulated sickly. But I think the administration, the people work here, we're just following the policy as it was written. But I have no problem paying out. And again, I would like to point out to
your point to clear that up as it pertains to this that at that meeting and it's a critical point because of what occurred with resignation verse retirement. The reason I had asked for it to be
removed from the agenda was because I had directed city staff to reach out to a labor attorney so that the entire council knew and could make an informed decision. and that didn't happen. So that is it in
that situation that was not a personal issue with any employee. It was an application issue of how the council would know and what knowledge they would have which now we do have. >> Mayor, may I >> please administrator? >> You're you're saying that there was no
followup again. Did you follow up with who you had asked to talk or re and get additional information back and see if there was something there or was there followup on your part with staff? >> Um, as it pertains uh to the meeting I'm speaking of when I
met with you and Mrs. Sten in that room 3:30 p.m. >> on December 1st. I had indicated that I was going to move to remove a resignation from the agenda that I would like a special city council meeting called in 72 hours that the labor
attorney could be present at. And at 4 p.m. Councelor Wgner and I came to land use and there was a meeting going on in the human resources office. Uh councelor Wegner and I waited and waited and waited to call the meeting to
order. We finally did and that never happened. Um, as it relates to the motions um, on the table, is there any [snorts] further discussion amongst the council? >> I will call the question. >> I >> I >> I
>> I'll vote yes. The motion [clears throat] carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, Mr. Ogdula, you had put a addendum
in the information that we have about the IT transition. >> Yes, sir. >> About what time did we sign the contract that you had offered which was a stop gap essentially for police and fire?
I believe um October 21st I believe my last day >> and the council did approve that and you had indicated that you had a phone and a key fob and your
access to city hall was impaired. >> Yes. I mean, I realize the city has the right to do that because, you know, it's their property, but um anyway, it's it's a it's just a I just want I was asked about it, so I simply wanted to point out that it was my intention to help the
city. And so, I just want to make it clear that if that didn't happen, it wasn't because I didn't want to help the city. >> Thank you. and is what again I would like to impress to the council is that we have all of the information because to the best of my knowledge
we signed a contract with you at $50 an hour which I believe we're still under. >> I believe so. I mean I I mean I signed the contract and you have a copy. So during that time period when
you have your phone taken and your key fob is deactivated and you can't access city buildings as a contractor. I don't know how you would do your job under that contract. >> Mayor, if I may >> please. >> You know Mr. Ogelo is under contract and
yes as an outgoing employee all keys, all phones and any personal city [music] items are returned. he was under contract. That means that if we needed him, we would contact him and get him in the building or wherever it needed to be so he could perform under the contract.
[music] And in the meantime, we had also hired the other firm to be here on a 40-hour basis because there were numerous outstanding IT issues that needed to be handled on a regular hour-to-hour basis. And Mr. Ogdula had taken pre [music] or excuse me, another
job. So that means he would be working on a full-time basis. and unavailable to us on a regular basis during work hours. Now, if Mr. Ogula does choose not to bill us for the hours in which he did come in and help, which is greatly appreciated, that's his choice, but he
does have the opportunity to bill us under the contract in which we are under with him. >> Thank you. Does the city have any outstanding keys to buildings? >> I'm not following the question. Well, is I hope that's being applied consistently
that >> absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um my final question about this issue is was there a gap in either having an inter information technology
employee? Was there a gap in IT services between um when we hired I believe it was ESX for information technology and between when you had mentioned that you couldn't access the facilities irregardless of
what time or whether it's policy. Was there a period of time in which there was nobody on [clears throat] staff to handle the city's IT issues? >> Mr. Mayor, are you asking me? >> Yes, I am. Um well I mean I I believe
the it wasn't ESX the it's uh the other firm uh >> I I get them mixed up acronyms. Thank you. >> Um but I mean the public record I mean they they started some week or two after me. So I'm not sure if I'm not sure of the length of the gap but >> um
please administrator >> there no gap mayor he was approved the document was approved on the 20th. He he his last day of employment was the 21st. There is no gap in IT [music] services >> because we were under contract. We're still under contract with Mr. Ogula as
well. >> So there would have been no gap in IT services. >> Would it be safe to say we found out during this time that we had contracted with Mr. old that that wasn't going to be sufficient to cover our needs that we needed somebody here
>> during the day in which if anybody's worked in a business is dependent on computers and it [clears throat] that is generally the case. >> Okay. It has not that's nothing about who what
or where cuz he's got a new job and I understand that. Yeah. I mean there was a gap in the sense that I didn't come in before the nuke firm started but um I guess you know the contractual element
is a different thing. >> My point is that we may have been under contract the whole time but my understanding was that you may not have been performing any duties or billing under your contract until um the city council authorized a new firm. and is
what I'm getting at is in a situation like this, it's not personal to me. It's a city issue. I would make a motion to direct our current IT provider uh to provide us evidence that all service, all servers, etc. as it relates to our
email and any documents are recorded and I would like receipt of that if there is support of the motion >> with that. I'm >> I am unclear on what the motion was there. I'm sorry. I'm making a motion to go to our current
IT provider, whatever their name is. Uh, is it 3S? >> Yes. >> Okay. There's many acronyms, so I get them confused. >> And I would like a letter from them to the council stating that all city documentation during this time period,
including the email server, including all internal servers, are backed up and that the city has that information. I'll move. >> Thank you, councelor Kaylor. >> Second. >> Thank you, councelor Legner. Is there discussion
>> back? I'm sorry. Backed up during what time frame? >> And maybe Betty already has it and she >> No, I don't. That's going to be my question. >> To date. >> To date. Okay. >> To date. >> That is not um I want to be clear. That's not an accusation of anyone or an
allegation. It's a city data practice issue. We're in a time of transition. We have RFPs out. There hasn't been a selection yet. This is very important stuff. With that, I'll call the question. >> I I >> I'll vote yes. Motion carries
unanimously. At this time, we have conducted the business as it relates to agenda item one, Mr. Todd Ogula with his red with his address, excuse me. Um, and discussion. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mayor Councel. I really appreciate. Stay warm out there. >> Thank you. >> There is no further business to come before the council and this meeting is adjourned.