live. All right. Are we live, ladies? Are we live? Yes, we are. Got to fix this thing. I'm going to make it blue. Okay. uh calling this special meeting to order
of the town council of the town of Lockachi Groves June 1st 2026 not quite at 7 pm 7:05 um and uh I will do the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence to the flag
of the republic which stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for Roll call, please. >> Council member Stevens, >> present. >> Council member Kaine, >> present. >> Council member Coleman, >> present.
>> Vice Mayor Sud, >> present. Mayor El Ramy >> present. >> Acting town manager Oaks >> present. >> Outside council Janica Simpson from Gay Robinson. Miss Simpson, are you on mute? Battle of technology.
get any of the techie back in here. Here she goes. So, I would like to say in in the interim of this period of silence, um, and I will repeat this tomorrow night, our town's condolences to, uh, former mayor and council member Robert Shaw on
the loss of his wife, uh, last week, uh, Francine Bell. >> Amen. Can I go ahead and make a motion to approve the agenda since >> we have to have additions, deletions, and modifications first? I think we need the attorney present.
Well, >> I just thought that part of >> Miss Simpson, can you affirm your attendance here at the meeting, please? Yes, Johnny Simpson, I am here.
>> Thank you. So, that brings us to additions, deletions, and modifications. >> No. So, can I now have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Have a motion to approve agenda by council member Kaine, second by council member Coleman. All those in favor? I
>> opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes 5. So, single item agenda. Um, we have comments from the public on non-aggenda items first. >> No comments, ma'am. >> No comments. Great. So, we'll move on to
regular agenda item one and I will pass this over to the special counsel regarding this issue. >> Yes. Good evening everyone once again. Um, by way of recap, um, the last town council meeting we ended with affording
additional authority to go back into negotiations with the town manager. Um, which I did. Um, and at that point we offered determination without cause, the payment of 10 weeks of severance not to include any administrative pay made to date, payment of any unused paid time
off, and a forfeite of the remaining balance in her FSA account that has not been utilized. Um, in response, um, the town manager has rejected the offer and has provided the town with two options.
Option one being to accept her retirement and to pay her up until September 30th of 2026. The second option is the town pay her the 20we severance under the employment agreement. both options comes with the
payment of the additional um acrew PTO and she has agreed to forfeit the FSA as far as I'm concerned as any of the communications with her council has not made any reference to it and that is currently where negotiations stand to
date. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh, I would like to make a motion at this time based on the fact that, uh, and Miss Simpson, can you confirm that you feel negotiations at this time have
reached an impass? >> Yes, that is that is correct, Madame Mayor, as we are now back at the standstill with, you know, the terms of the agreement being offered, which we knew from the start was always a possibility.
>> Okay. Thank you. So at this time we are nearly at seven weeks of administrative leave pay. Um I believe uh the acting town manager did uh produce a document. Is that something
that you can pass out or >> copies? I need to make more copies because I literally did it right up front. >> Yes. I think it was running through town hall with that information. So it it has some some data on that regarding
regarding the uh payto-ate what a 20we severance looks like what paid through the end of the contract looks like as well. So and uh cumulative PTO through the end of the contract
as well. So, I'll wait till we get that document passed out to everybody. So, before I uh move forward with this, >> well, there's less than 20 weeks left in
her contract, right? >> Well, it's I think it's all in the document she's going to provide. So, yeah, I think you're right. >> Well, I'm just rough count in my head. 3 months is 12 weeks. So >> it's four months. >> Okay. Four months is 16 weeks. >> Correct.
>> You know, I'm just saying, you know, >> correct. >> So either we stop it now and pay 20 or we pay the >> Yeah. So here here's all the information. And I think the only missing information
on this is how much um how much does a PTO hour is that at the hourly rate here? Uh 78.25 is that correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Could you give us a a total on 366.867 PTO hours. Thank you. >> It's not odd. >> 366 point. That is not a dollar figure. Those are ours. >> Yeah. It's like looking through the
kaleidoscope. >> 867 at the bottom. >> Correct. And at $78.25 25 cents an hour. >> That would be approximately 28,77.34. >> Sorry, did you say 28? >> Yes. >> 28 what?
>> 707.34. >> Okay. So given that we entered into a negotiation based on the desire to avoid an investigation
uh by the manager utilizing her retirement letter, I would like to move that based on extensive documentation, eyewitness accounts, and a pattern of conduct over a significant period and subsequent to administrative leave, it
is clear the town manager has engaged in multiple violations that meet the definition of with cause termination under the agreement. Specifically, her actions and inactions may constitute misfeasance, malfeasants, and/or non fees feasance in the performance of her
duties and responsibilities. Neglect of duty, including the unwillingness or inability to properly discharge the responsibilities of the office. Violation of substantive town policies, rules, and regulations, including the human resources policy
manual and procurement policy. Commission of acts that have caused the town disrepute, violation of state and local ethics laws and codes, including the Florida Code of Ethics, Palm Beach County Code of Ethics, and standards under the International City County Management Association code of ethics. These
conclusions are supported by the town manager position description as advertised in 2022, which requires the town manager to faithfully execute all laws, charter provisions, and acts of the council. Provide proper administration and supervision over all town employees and
administrative affairs. Maintain fiscal responsibility and proper oversight of the town's operations, budget, and personnel. Ensure accurate and unbiased information is provided to the council and exercise independent judgment and discretion in a manner consistent with
the council manager form of government. Prior to an investigation, documentation, and eyewitness accounts support the following, but are not limited to serious financial and procurement irregularities, including failure to remove former employees from
bank account access. Failure to follow policy on payroll oversight. Improper use of spending authority. Failure to provide oversight on credit card expenditures and electronic fund transfers. An inadequate oversight of consultants and vendors on performance
and deliverables. Mismanagement of personnel matters including failure to properly execute drug-free workplace policy. Failure to remove former employees from benefits resulting in additional costs to the town. Selective and inconsistent code
enforcement, including refusal to act on legitimate complaints. Subversion or inaction on council direction, interference with council members rights to information, provision of false or misleading information to government agencies, council, residents,
and in official proceedings. Failure to implement critical strategic planning tools, including mitigation of identified problems, and both internal and external SWAT analysis, interference with independent external SWAT analysis to edit report language prior to receipt
by council, unauthorized actions, creation, and implementation of policy, excessive use of legal, HR, and accounting services, use of funds and resources to investigate residents, and exceeding administrative authority. violation of terms of paid
administrative leave and other fact acts that have undermined the public trust and integrity of town government. These are not isolated incidents but represent a pattern of behavior that material impair materially impair the effective operation of town government and violate
the fundamental obligations outlined in both the town manager employment agreement and position description. Despite goodfaith efforts to resolve this matter through negotiation of an accelerated separation, these efforts have failed. In spite of some assertions that there are no grounds for
termination with cause, the above demonstrates otherwise. In conclusion, pursuant to section 13B of the town manager employment agreement between the town of Lacheti Groves and Francine El Romelia and consistent with section 4 of the town charter, I make a
motion to terminate the employment of town manager Francine El Ramalia for cause effective immediately. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I will open that to discussion. And I believe Council Member Coleman, you had
your light on first. >> Miss Simpson, has anything changed since last week as far as evidence that you've you've accumulated, found? >> No, not at this time.
If I'm reading if I'm reading this right, if we pay the 20, it's 625 96 and 20 or if we run out the contract at 7824525. Right. Am I reading this breakdown correctly?
>> You'd have to ask. I'm sorry. Say that again. >> Am I reading this correctly? If we pay if we stop today and pay the 20we severance, it's 62596 total. Um >> or that's the 20we severance. That's the amount of 20 weeks.
>> So in total 20 week severance is 62. That's not including what you've paid thus far the 21. >> Okay. But I'm saying I just want to make sure that I'm clear. >> If we stop it today >> and you pay >> we pay we paid the 60,000 change. Right. >> It would be 62 plus the PTO
>> plus the PTO. >> Correct. >> That's been accumulated up to today. >> Yes. >> Right. which is the >> about 23788. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, and if we if we run out the contract then the total is 782 total or
is that without the PTO as well? >> That's without the PTO. >> So, that would be the PTO this 56 added to it. >> It would be the 78 24525 plus 28 $77.34.
>> Okay. So I think roughly um what I had provided in the memo when we initially started um was that the continued employment through September 30th 2026 uh gross pay and PTO payout would be
approximately 103,000 plus >> 103 if we just say 63 + 24 >> no I said 78 8. >> No, I said that. But you said 103 would
be the to like for the entire contract 103, right? >> Mhm. >> If we were to go the 20 20 week severance route, it's a 625 plus the 237. >> That's correct. >> So, we just round 24 + 63 is 7. >> So, what does this have to do with
termination with cause? >> Well, it's all part of the same conversation. >> No, termination with cause is there's no pay pass. the immediate >> No, I understand that today. I understand. I understand. I understand. >> I'm just curious where you're going. >> I'm I'm looking at the whole >> Okay.
>> picture, right? And and I still say and very eloquently put I I liked what you you know very eloquently written but I I still hang my hat on the attorney that we hired said she could draw some lines of to
cause but her recommendation was for us to settle. Meaning I think that means if she thought that it had merit to where it could stand up to where it would be in our best
interest to to go that route as far as with cause then that would have been a recommendation. That was not her recommendation. >> Yeah. I'm I'm curious about that recollection. I I don't recall they're saying to settle with cause. She said that and I will I will use Council
Member Kane's words. that would be the most fiscally responsible. The actual words are how do you know what dollar figure you have involved here? That's really what that boils down to. So, if Miss Simpson wants to speak on whether she advised the town specifically to
settle without cause and to pay whatever the severance was, she can speak to that. I wouldn't put words in her mouth. >> Yes. I I didn't want to interject, but yes, that that was a >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you say that again? There was speaking here.
>> Um, sorry. Are you able to hear me now? >> Yes. >> Um, I was advising that. That was a correct recollection, Madame Mayor. Um, my recommendation at the last town council meeting was that for economic reasons, it would be at that time when
you proposed the 16 weeks in in our counter offer. My recommendation at that time was more on an economic basis and not that the um the things that we discussed and that you just referenced in your motion didn't have any teeth for
lack of better word. It wasn't it wasn't that it was just at that juncture it would be it would have been more economically feasible for the town to settle at that time. So now that that's no longer on the table, do you still have that position?
And and as to the potential documentation and eyewitness accounts of what was listed this evening, do you feel that there is not merit for cause? >> No, it's not that I don't feel that there is no merit for cause. It's from
an economic standpoint because the things that you recounted while we have some documentation now, it was still it would be our recommendation that we would still launch the investigation to be able to really call out substantial proof to be able to put these things
together so that we would be able to sustain because the town manager's um council has stated several times that litigation is certainly underway should she be terminated with cost. So that is my recommendation at this time. Would the would paying the 20 weeks be more
economically feasible? Yes. But I it doesn't speak to whether the town has cause or not. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Kaine. So again, what I'm hearing is that the economically feasible thing to do, the
most responsible economical decision for us to make is to go ahead and pay out the contract because that would be the least expensive thing. The most uh prudently legal probably be would be to fire without cause and pay the 20 weeks
because then we would get a release. If we just pay out the contract, we don't get the release. Correct. No, that's not correct. Um, with paying out the contract >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, go ahead. I'm sorry. Your thought >> and I guess I should ask, when you're
referencing paying out the contract, are you speaking to terminating with or without cause or are you referencing to >> No. Well, I'm speaking of two different options that I see as the most economically responsible things to do with our taxpayers dollars. The one
option is to pay the contract, accept the retirement, and pay the contract until September 31st. That's that's the 30th. I'm sorry. That's the That's option one. >> That is the least expensive, but it doesn't provide us with legal protection
because it still allows for a lawsuit from the town manager afterwards should that should she decide to do that. The second option that I am considering is firing without cause and paying out the 20we severance.
That option is possibly more um desirable for especially for people who have made comments that might subject them to be open to being litigated against and provides a release. There is no release provided
with the first option. Is that correct? Well, that's correct because the first option hasn't been proposed by her counsel. However, that is something that we could discuss. As far as the termination without cause, her council and I have spoken about that and the release would certainly be attached to
that. But given that the initial offer that you just referenced, the first one has not been discussed with her council, we can't rule out that she wouldn't be willing to sign a release for that one. >> Oh, she might. You mean she might be willing to? There's a >> have us accept her resignation and
potentially sign a release along with that. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> No problem. >> Thank you, >> council member. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Sun. >> Okay, residents, my dear friends, we are elected not just for economic
reasons. We are elected for fiduciary responsibility to our taxpayers. And there is something called public interest and accountability and transparency in government. So let me start by saying in the previous meeting there was somehow a
suggestion of a witch hunt. This investigation is a witch hunt. Well a witch hunt is when acquisitions are made without process without evidence and without independent review. This is not what happened here. The council itself,
us voted to initiate the review process. The council voted to place the town manager on leave. The council voted to retain independent council and this council authorized taxpayer dollars to conduct that review and negotiations. In other words, we established a formal
process precisely so this would not become political or personal. And now after that independent review and as madame mayor said and I have been sitting on the financial committees and this is not a news that there is a pattern of behavior. There is a pattern
of behavior and in any position especially powerful position like the town manager when we removed her people came out with new information. So my friend here suggested is there a new information? I think even in the last meeting I said there should be an
investigation. there is enough information to justify that. So we are established a formal process precisely so this does not become political or personal and now our special counsel said that there is a strong confidence
that the issues could support a four cost termination that was her assessment. Yes she said for economic reasons we can say go away issue can go away but that's the economic reason. So this decision is not coming this
analysis is not coming from any one council member that is coming from an independent lawyer council. This person we have hired collectively to investigate the matter objectively. So financially settling is not same as
saying the issues are insignificant. These are two completely different things. So let me ask my friends this. Imagine our acting town manager or some lower level employee would have done all this. Would you have done any
investigation or said, "Okay, just because somebody's leaving, you just don't compromise your processes." If allegations involving misuse of taxpayer dollars, abuse of authority, procedural violations, or willful improper conduct
had involved a lower level employee. I don't believe anyone on this dis would characterize an independent investigation as a waste of taxpayer dollars or a witch hunt. We would call it accountability. The town manager is the highest administrative position in
this town. This position should not receive less scrutiny than any other employee. If anything, it should receive more. And ultimately, this is the standard we should set for our town. Doing the right thing is not always comfortable. And more importantly, it's not always inexpensive. But
accountability matter, integrity matters. If we establish an independent investigation process, then we should have the courage to stand behind that process wherever the facts lead, not abandon it when it becomes difficult or expensive. So in conclusion, Laha
Grove's council must act within public interest and fudiciary responsibility as much as economic responsibility. We should remain a town. That that does the right thing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Coleman. >> I think one one key word that's been
said throughout this whole thing, it could it could it could not it it it is it will it could draw a line to
with cause. It could draw a line. I I didn't see concrete evidence. You're talking about investigation. I I asked if there was new anything new and the attorney said there's nothing new since we met last week. So, if there was something new, then that should have been given to the attorney,
right? Because she's the one representing us and giving us a recommendation to this matter. It's not, you know, that there is at this point right now allegation and innuendo. There's proof of whatever.
There's proof of this. there's proof of, you know, I I I just don't Yeah, I I I think Yeah, there are some fiduciary responsibilities and things like that, but I think at this point in this in this game and and in this ninth
hour that or ninth inning that the economic needs to win win out as you said at the last meeting, principle is expensive. I agree. >> And it's very expensive. I think if we would have gone with the
previous motion last week instead of the one we ended up with, we would be done right now. But that's not what happened. Something else was proposed. We went with that and it got turned down. I mean, impass or not, she's sticking to her guns 20 weeks
instead of 16, whatever. It's still not $103,000. it still has a a old harmless letter, right? Etc., etc. So, I I you know, at this point, you
know, there were four individual complaints brought against her in the la last in last year that were bore no fruit. They bore no fruit. So, I mean, when I say witch hunt, because I said it, you can say I said it because I said
it and I said it at every meeting, not just last week, not just the one before. When I say witch hunt, it's because every time it's okay, let's dig a little deeper. Let's dig a little deeper. Let's dig a little deeper. You know, how how far are we going to keep digging? I mean, really, because she, you know,
Miss Simpson, correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm misspeaking, but basically, if if if we approve the motion that's in front of us right now, it's going to incite an investigation, multiple hours at $300 an hour for at least one person, and then multiple
hundreds of dollars an hour for each additional person added to that, not the mission, all the miscellaneous stuff that goes along with it. So, not only are we, yes, it's cutting off the salary right now, but then we're going to end up in litigation
as she pointed out was said, um, because I have a feeling that she's going to fight to, you know, clear her name. We're not going to regain any of that money. That's even more. So to say we don't we don't have the economic
responsibility and that that doesn't play a factor in this that that's I I I think that's irresponsible. Um I I think it it plays a big part in it. And I've said I said it last week and I'll say it
again now just for the record. Um said a couple things. I didn't vote for the contract. I voted against the contract. So please stop saying that I voted for the contract. And number two, if Miss Simpson had shown me some kind of concrete evidence, I'd have been I'd
have jumped right in with you last week. But I didn't see anything that bore any resemblance of, you know, it's going to be, lack of a better term, a guilty verdict at the end of this thing. I think it's going to be a long fight that's not going to end well.
>> So you you use the word could. These things could equal terminate with cause. That same that same logic could be applied to litigation. That that at this point is a threat, right? Well, that let me finish.
>> That's that is a threat. So, >> and I know we've thrown out the term of $100,000, you know, to litigate. Per the contract, it will cost the opposing party also $100,000 grant to litigate. Both parties per the contract bear their own legal
cost. The contract caps the the award at 20 week severance. Who's going to spend a h 100,000 to chase 62? Okay. >> Nobody who wants to clear their name. >> Somebody who wants to clear their name. Okay. So, everything that was presented
tonight in this motion is documented. There's either eyewitness accounts or there is a document to reference regarding every one of these things. The reason they were not brought forward earlier was the advice of special counsel was it was a negotiating tactic to not put these into the public view.
>> I understand that I was here. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, you were here. Yeah. Right. And as far as the $103,000, that's not the figure I get when I calculate what was provided here tonight. >> That was okay. to pay through the pay
through the end of the contract with cumulative PTO is $85,43.92 to terminate without cause for the 20we severance plus PTO to date which is the $23,788
is $86,38420 a difference of about I don't know $1,100 $1,200 give or to terminate with cause is $23,788
and potentially you're done or potentially special counsel might want the documentation we have on hand without an investigation or there may be some limited investigation to some of the the things that were listed that were more concerning that might need a
deeper dive. So, I believe that every one of these cumulatively shows a a repeated pattern that clearly rises to the level of cause and that the documentation is there to support the town council making that decision this
evening and saving the town roughly $50,000 plus on any one of those other scenarios. So, that's my point. >> That's if we don't go to litigation. >> I'm sorry. That that's a threat. that is no if we go to litigation. So
>> I believe you've been trying to prove these things for over a year. The same group of people has been trying to prove these things for over a year. It's gone to the state's attorney general. It's gone to the ethics board. It's gone to a independent contractor who came in and
did a SWAT analysis. We have spent money. We've spent probably 30 or $40,000 just roughly off the top of my head investigating issues that were alleged against the the council member and God knows how many tax member dollars were spent at the attorney general level. So I I just think that
this is I'll use Paul's term the continuation of a witch hunt. Um I think it's grossly irresponsible and I think that there will most certainly be litigation. Um and I think that the cost of that will far exceed
what we're talking about here. So, I just think the only responsible thing to do once again is to terminate without cause and pay out the seance. >> Thank you. And by the way, no investigation has been looked into the multitude of the list here. You you can
claim whatever you'd like, Vice Mayor Sudan. >> Okay. I think this uh witch hunt term is being used again and again. It's a good political word. Oh, witch hunt. We hired an independent council. We did not interfere. This independent council said
there is strong confidence that issue could support a four cause termination. And to my friend's point here or could everything starts with an allegation. We are not the judge and the jury right sitting here. Everything starts with an
allegation. Could then there is a process. Our counselor said there is strong confidence. She's going to review everything quickly. She's going to look at the issues that are deliberate and then she's going to present her report
to us. So, but it is it's not just a hearsay at this time. It's not just a okay, let's say quote. It's a very strong documented proof that our council feels strongly about. So, I think
we have public accountability and taxpayers money at which has been spent. So, we should pursue that wherever it leads. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member Stevens, you would have
anything to say? >> Just a quick question. Uh, keeping up with your list over there and I was trying to write a few of them down. Did you mention or allude to and just a yes or no? Um potential election interference
>> that would fall under subversion or inaction on council direction. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And as far as the SWAT analysis, uh both the internal and the external SWAT analysis identified areas that needed
critical change. The internal one prior to the external one was eight months. The external one, there was another eight months. No action was ever taken. The external SWAT analysis uh report was
able to be um discussed with the independent external SWAT folks by the town manager and edits were made to the report prior to being given to council. >> Okay. Thank you. I um I think the
residents deserve to know the truth one way or the other. And um I made a comment was last meeting that a lot of people have been hurt over the last year, year and a half and uh no more than they deserve to know.
Uh my motion stands, Madame Mayor. >> Thank you. Vice Mayor Su your lights on. >> So special counsel um Miss Simpson, is there an election interference claim allegedly? Yes or no? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other council member comments? >> No public comments. >> Yes, madam mayor. Um, sorry. Todd McClendon. Todd Mlendon, that 16 weeks is looking pretty good right now, huh? Maybe you
should take this 20week offer. The best law firm is recommending for you not take your personal feelings and let those cloud your judgment. And that's what I see happening tonight. you have a personal vendetta or personal issues that you want to swing that axe.
And when you swing that axe, it's going to go both ways. Whether it's a $50,000 bribe to the town manager previously that happened, whether it's council members withholding public records from town hall, all those sort of things arecome become exposed. So, it goes both
ways. When city sitting council members talk about how the town manager affected me personally in my personal life, you're supposed to be here representing the people, not yourselves. So, when you make that comment and say, "It affected me
personally," that tells me your vote tonight is your personal vote, not as a representative. And you're supposed to be acting as a representative. You can move on with 20 weeks tonight. Could have went with 16 last time. You could go with 20.
and move on. This town needs to move on. We have so many issues in this town and we need to divorce and be done with it. And you guys want to keep going and keep going. And this is primarily how divorces end up getting litigated for years. And the only people that win are
the attorneys every time. Those are the ones that win. There is no winner at the end of the game except for those attorneys. Thank you. >> Thank you. So the argument
to make the most fiscally responsible decision and the fear of threatened litigation to terminate without cause is in essence over the PTO $62,59620
and to pay through the end of the contract over the current PTO is $61,00 255.92. That's a lot of investigation and legal services. So I don't hear anybody up here saying
this is a personal vendetta. >> I never said that. >> No. >> Oh, while you're looking this way. I never said that. >> Well, >> I never said this. So, >> I never said it was a personal vendetta. I call it a witch hunt because ever since ever since March or April, it's
been it's been this is what's going to happen. This is what you we're going to do this. We're going to do this. We're going to do this. And it's been no I apologize. It's been there's been no leeway either way. There's been no it
it's just been we're going to do an investigation. We're going to do this. We're hiring independent counsel. the no offense to Miss Simpson and her firm, but the council I I I sat at the first meeting and after I listened to the three councils and I knew exactly
exactly which firm was going to get picked because she was the only one that said even though they all said we'll do what you want but we're telling you mostly in these scenarios the best course of action you know financially etc is to settle. That was their first
statement. The Simpsons first statement was, "I'll do an investigation. I'll go after it. I'll do it." You know, are you telling me if we dug in on everybody in here that we wouldn't find some little skeleton in somebody's closet or a bunch of skeletons in somebody's closet at their job or
whatever? Probably. You know, not nobody's perfect. And I'm not saying that she's perfect. I'm not saying that some of this stuff isn't true, warranted, whatever. What I'm saying is when I sat down with Miss Simpson last week at your behest,
I didn't see anything that made me jump up and say, you know what, I'm jumping on board. So, yeah, I I you know, knowing the town manager, as long as she's worked here and her mindset on certain things, I I
bet I it's not a fear, Lisa. I'm not I'm not scared that she's going to litigate. her lawyer said if this doesn't happen, she's going to litigate. So, it's not a fear. I have a good feeling that that's what's going to happen. And 60,000, I
think the bill is going to be way over that. Okay. >> So, yeah. >> So, we attempted to provide the dignified exit that everybody discussed in April at the cost of $22,000.
So that's been the cost to to pay her to date. So again, I don't understand necessarily why the hesitancy to recognize that performance matters that are documented rise to the level of
termination. Vice May, you had your light on and turned it off. >> Oh, okay. If you'll leave it on if you want to speak. All right. No, no, I'm done. So I think to Paul's comment, this is
not some harmless one-time ignorant error. What we are talking about is intentional pattern of behavior. And as Madame Mayor has put together a list and I have seen the list when we sat down, I sat down. My conclusion is totally
different from yours. So yes, you know what I understand where you are coming from. I understand where you're coming from, but now we have to do what's right for taxpayers dollars, accountability, and trust. Thank you.
>> As as for selection of attorneys, I know when I spoke with, I believe it was Mr. Stokes um was the other gentleman that had more time to to pursue this. After being presented in our conversation with some of this documented evidence, he did
adjust his position and say that with cause was probably a reasonable conclusion as well. So your conclusion that you already knew which council was going to be hired is an interesting one to me. >> Well, >> so >> I I I had Okay. I maybe I didn't know,
but I had a really really good good idea and it came to fruition. So, but I mean we we can beat this back and forth and Manish can counterpoint everything I say, right? But I still don't think and
and to his point just now the the the most economical thing for this town right now because we've already expended a lot of money on this and staff payroll, we haven't even accounted for that, you know, for all these special hearings is is is to settle this and be done with it and to cut bait and be
done. That's it to drag this out for months and months. It it's it makes it's not good for us. It's not good for, you know, and it has nothing to do with political. Witch hunt was not a political word. It wasn't political. I don't care about politics. Care about
what's best for this town. Best for this town is not standing on principle and and taking and and and you know, holding somebody's feet to the fire when it should have been held the feet to the fire a long time ago. And if that list is the whole list that was given to Miss
Simpson and she's still saying the most economical thing to do because guess what? It's going to go to an investigation and it's going to take a long time. The most economical thing to do is to settle. That's where I stand. We keep beating this back and forth all
night. Did it for what? Three hours last time. >> Okay. Well, we like to be thorough. I >> guess you could call it that. Well, again, there is a motion. Public
comments have already been sought. So, Miss Simpson, is there anything else you'd like to say before I take a vote? >> No, there is not, Madam Mayor. >> All right. We have a motion to terminate with cause effective immediately. All those in favor?
>> I I opposed. Opposed. >> Motion fails. 32. Vice Mayor Sue, your lights on. >> I would like to propose a motion to uh have the special counsel complete her investigation. There's no reason to stop that from happening. So, we should stop
that investigation. And I have another motion that I will float, but let me have a second on that. What would like to support? >> Um I I would Well, first we'll see. Is there a second for that? >> I'll second.
>> Okay. We have a a motion by vice president Sud to uh basically have special counsel pursue an investigation and a second by council member Stevens. Um my comment to that is
I would rather see an investigation carried out through the acting town manager providing for an investigator. Um, that's not to say that special counsel could not be provided with all the documentation that backs up the motion that was made tonight that
failed. So, that that's just my comment on that. So, >> could you elaborate? >> Yeah, please. Um I I think that uh acting town manager in the capacity of of bringing this forward at repeated meetings had prepared to um do some
research on some investigators and I think you you found some uh and I do believe Gay Robinson did say they they have some internal people as well. Um I don't believe it's going to be that extensive, but Miss Simpson could say, you know, it what what the reality of it
is as far as tailoring it. I'm not sure it would change the council members minds that are clearly made up that they don't want to spend any more than this dollar figure that is in front of them on paper because it might become a a lawsuit, but um acting manager, I don't
know if you want to speak to investigators or Miss Simpson. Um, so with conversations that council has had in the past and brought out um the topic of a potential investigation, um, we did reach out to a couple of
different firms um, who do offer investigative services. They're all around the $300 range. Um, and when I spoke with Miss Simpson, her firm does offer um, investigation services. I don't know if you want to speak to that, Miss Simpson.
>> Uh, yes. When Valerie and I spoke, um, I advised that our firm handles these type of investigations internally and we typically only outsource for human resource related matters, which this is not. Um, and that's basically where we
stand as far as investigations. Um, we would put together a team. It would depend on how much we can call out that list or reduce that list to um more pertinent matters that we believe would you know sustain and hold on to the with
cause under the contract as opposed to some others that may have a more weakened basis. Not to say that it wouldn't be able to. was just in an effort to be, you know, more fiscally responsible in regards to the investigation and also as far as the timeliness is concerned, limiting the
list down to maybe five or six action items and putting together a team based on that. It could just be me depending on what it is. It could be another associate and I it would largely depend on how you know minimize we get that list, but overall our firm would be
handling the investigation internally should the council decide. So, >> so I do have another question regarding a formal investigation. So, should the town uh undertake a formal investigation and there are
findings that rise to to a threshold that would require the town to report to appropriate agencies. Is it your opinion that we would be required to do that? Should findings support that versus what
maybe documentation we have now? >> There's a likelihood that yes, that would be required. It would just be fact dependent and whichever situation it is, we would have to, you know, do a little research into it, which that's something I can do on my own at no cost to the town. But just to confirm on the
obligations of the town, we would, you know, request that. >> Okay. And when you say assemble a team, uh we heard from the acting manager that most of the investigators that she spoke with were at the $300 per hour mark.
Would that be something that would be equivalent in your scenario or not? >> Yes, it would be. I can pull um I pulled up a couple of associates that we have in our L& team, which is labor and employment, that are, you know, they're routinely involved in matters like this.
So, it would be easy for us to get that team together and most of their rates are the same, if not equivalent to mine, but it wouldn't be an issue to bring in their rate to the 300 mark as I am. >> Okay. Council member Sue, you you said
you had something else to speak to. >> No, I I would say in matters like this, correct me, Miss Simpson, but you would go through the list. You have already gone through to some issues. You will prioritize it. You will see what issues are the most serious ones and you will
dig deeper with the help of investigators and uh accordingly advise the town acting town manager and the council on the next steps which madame mayor u mentioned could be that we may have to involve state investigation and
other agencies based on the actual factf finding again I'm not prejudging based on the results uh that we could leverage other resources that are available to us as well. So on that uh would you be able to give us some estimate like based on
the issues on hand that madame mayor read out and other thing could you provide a proposal to create highlevel whatever technical word you use go dig deeper and present a factual investigation report the timeline and the effort level total budget for such
an effort. >> Yes, I would be able to do so. Um, I actually plan on sending a memo out to the council members following this meeting and we would also include a potential budget in the action plan should this proceed to an investigation as well.
>> Okay. All right. I I would like to have another uh topic that I want to bring in. It has nothing to do with my motion, but it may be another way to do this. But
before the elections, the town council here and two of the members are still here. One of the members actually voted for 41 contract for the termination. Very well knowing there was a referendum question. Very well knowing which way
the wind was blowing. But somehow her contract was approved as 4-1. Only three council members voted on her contract to make this contract to be terminated by 4-1. And then the referendum happened and the referendum said our people our
resident said that the town manager in other words officer can be fired with 32 vote. So could you look into the issue if we take a 3-2 vote here to reverse that in the light of that intentional sort of whatever happened in the past
change it back to 32 so we can terminate our contract if if we can make referendum as the law of the land if that is applicable I'm again I'm throwing a suggestion out there if there is any legality to it we want to see if
we can vote on uh implementing the referendum as the law of the land and bring her contract back to 32 termination. Thank you. >> Miss Simpson, could you speak to that?
>> Yes. Um, that is something that we can certainly look into, but I do not have an answer readily available for the council at this moment, but again, I could research into it and circle back with a response as well, and I can make sure to incorporate that into the memorandum to council members.
>> Thank you. So, just to clarify, you're saying that a referendum vote would null and void a particular clause within an existing contract. >> There there's even a possibility of that. >> Can she answer that, please?
>> I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Um, what I'm saying is that I do not know and that would require research. I mean, it's it's creative. It's lucrative. However, it's not something that you see commonly. So, I would have to research
to see if there's something out there case law-wise that would support that position. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Coleman. You have your light on. >> That was my That was my number two. That was my point two. My point one was I champion the 3-2 vote referendum. I
championed it. I've been saying for a long time this was an issue. My third point is, and it's a little off, but you know, there were tons of allegations against former managers. Actually, every former manager we've had, there have been allegation after allegation, cuz
that's what they are right now, cuz they're not proven. So, they're allegations. Allegation after allegation after allegation after allegation, and every one of them has been bought out of their contract because why? It's the prudent thing to do, not to stand on principle. I understand what you're saying, Manish,
about about, you know, fiduciary responsibility and it's our our it's our integrity and it's our that's what we're here for. We're also here to not waste time and not spend all this money. So, >> I would argue that other people that saw
those people get paid off to go away were very upset that some of those things occurred as well. So, I'm not saying that it may have been the prudent thing, but there is there is a time and a place to stand on certain things. And um I think that some of those in the
past, which didn't involve us, >> right, >> were bad decisions. >> And I've also been a proponent of, you know, >> when your house is in order, then you can stand on your principles. This house has not been in order for quite some time. So, I'm thinking we move forward,
we start the new chapter, and and and we start steering this ship the way it should be. >> What do you mean the house in order? >> This this house has been a shambles all for years. >> Well, I I think what happened was >> there's been a lot of side dealing and
all. experienced it, you know, from the outside looking in and some from the inside where where I think this all really went sideways was when we went from contract management to an employee model. And that was never fully like
pictured, realized, defined. Uh, you know, we even have in front of us, I I pulled up the the town manager position description um in my research and that wasn't written by council in 2022. That was written by the acting manager and
it's tailored to the acting manager skill set. Is that what we want as a town? So, I think where this all really went wrong was previous councils relied on experts to create policy and and definitions that
may or may not have fit us. And I I don't disagree with your statement, but I do believe that this is an opportunity to to write some of that house in order and disorder as well. So that that's where I I think this falls and and I
just think we're we're circling the same drain. >> We are, but we're we're circling opposite opposite directions. We're we're wanting to get to the same >> southern hemisphere and hemisphere we >> you know I mean listen I mean I I can say you know before sitting up here you
know the three of us had had multiple conversations on multiple times. I mean, you and I have definitely had many many conversations about, you know, that the order of of this house, right? And and you know, and I just don't I
honestly don't think Yeah, I think we can correct it. I think we can fix things, but standing on this is not the start of fixing it. >> Well, as a law and order person, I I I my shades of gray are limited, right? Uh I think that this town will do
well having those parameters firmly set moving forward, >> right? >> And I believe this action is one of those things that can can set that. >> I think we just go through and change >> moving forward. >> I think we we we I don't I think I think we can do that with documentation like
you said, >> proper job descriptions, proper you know I I think there's other ways to do it. It's just >> All right. So, we have a motion uh to to um authorize an investigation.
Uh are we stating that at a particular hourly rate >> or are we waiting to hear back from from her estimate? >> Yeah, I would say a motion to authorize the investigation and have Miss Simpson come back to us with a proposal. >> Uh
>> that's going to delay the start time. Can we Can we set a dollar figure now? >> Yeah, we can set it. Yeah, we'll put to that. Yes. >> So, we can set a dollar figure now. What does anyone have an idea what a reasonable dollar figure would be?
I think she needs a time of a week or two to do her analysis, initial analysis, which means we can authorize at least two weeks of investigation of her time, not full-time, whatever hour she need, needs to present a proposal, a
complete plan, investigations, plans, working with state, local authorities as needed, work, having proper privileges because >> Okay, hold that thought. Yeah, >> Miss Simpson, what's involved in an investigation? >> But typically with the investigation, we
will call through any documents provided in support of either of the items. We would also potentially invest um schedule meetings with former employees, current employees, and so forth for the purpose of being able to really get a
full picture of, you know, what has transpired, what hasn't transpired, so that we could really, you know, connect the dots here. and and that's where it would be at this moment. We wouldn't really engage with any um agencies unless there's a a substantial need to
do so, but we don't typically do that. >> So staff staff would provide you with a list of potential employees to to uh interview. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay, >> mayor. So, if you're going off the model
that vice mayor said approximately two weeks, if you say 80 hours, you're looking at about $24,000 to date. Um I think we currently have one invoice that's um in the queue to be paid. We're at $7,200 with this firm and
I only have a spending authority up to $24.99. So, I just nine. So, I just want to make sure that that's clear for the record. >> Okay. I don't think we need her to work full-time for 80 hours for two weeks. Um maybe she can give us some idea how much
will that be. So uh we can we can u look at the Miss Simpson do you have any idea? Do you need 40 hours for the next two weeks to put a proposal do your initial analysis and come back to us with a structured plan? How many hours? Or you can send it
just an idea range. What would that be? Um, I think it it all goes back to limiting that list. And once we limit that list and get an idea of the individuals that we need to speak to as well as the documentation that we would be reviewing, I would be able to come up
with something more fruitful then it depends, right? But I don't think that it would take 80 hours. But again, it it largely depends on how much of that list we can call out and narrow in on certain issues. >> Okay. Can we say something to the effect
of uh acting manager said she has a an invoice in hand and we can allow that spending up to her threshold? So, I would say why don't we potentially try to cap it at about 40 hours um only
because that'll put us at 12,000. Um and obviously leave room for her coming back to another council meeting and then if after the 40hour findings um and if council wishes to proceed um with digging further, what have you, then we'll bring that back to you all.
>> So, roughly around 40 hours is good. Y >> okay. So, I would like to modify my motion to say uh approve 40 hours of work to uh 40 hours of work for Miss Simpson to
provide a uh investigation plan and uh >> it's more than a plan. >> More than a plan. >> Actual investigation. >> Actual investigation. Yep. >> So, approve 40 hours at this time and present us with a report. How about that? Make it simple. Let's approve 40 hours. She dig She digs deeper into the
issues. prioritizes that. >> Okay, let let me cap your motion here. So, recapping for the record, uh, Vice Mayor Sud has made a motion to authorize the special counsel to pursue, uh, 40 hours of investigation time into the
operational performance matters of the town manager. We had a second by Vice Mayor Stevens. He will he will second up that one, that amended motion again. And uh, Council Member Coleman, you've got your light on. >> So, it's 40 man hours, correct?
>> 40 hours. >> Cuz Miss Simpson said it might not just be her. She's got a helper, >> you know, associate. Sorry, not a helper. 40 man hours. >> 40 hours. >> Another 12 grand. Right. >> That's what it looks like.
>> So, any public comment on this motion? >> No, Madam Mayor. >> All right. I have a motion to uh move forward with an investigation. Um all those in favor >> I >> I opposed >> opposed.
>> Motion passes 32. That concludes uh this agenda item and I believe >> motion to adjourn >> meeting. I'll make sure there's my >> I lost it. >> Um my agenda make sure there was
>> we need to set up other special meetings. >> Hold on. There were council member comments and Anita, you have an announcement about the meeting in Belglade for the >> 30th >> for the 30th of June. >> 6 o'clock >> 6 to 8 >> 6 to 8 in Belgrade >> on the transportation county plan
>> transportation master plan. >> Bring your neighbors. Tell your neighbor >> bring your neighbors. Tell your neighbors. Tell your friends. I'm already trying to rally people to be out there. Super important. I've already uh been participating in this event for about a year. Um, we have another meeting for errors and emissions where I
plan to point out the errors and emissions that I believe are there. Uh, not the least which being I don't know if any everybody saw what our county commissioner put out this week, but the widening of Okchobee is most definitely
on there. So, um, we really do need a lot of voices out there. So, um, please everybody come. Yeah, >> I realize it's inconvenient, but it is your only opportunity to speak out as a citizen. >> Any other council comments? >> Yeah, I just to piggyback, I don't think
we can rest on the laurels of well, it got kicked off the schedule multiple times due to budgetary restraints. This is something that's live in our face. It's coming and we need to as many people that can be there on the 30th need to be there on the 30th. Let your
voice be heard, >> right? It's this is the time right now. All right, we do have a regular council meeting tomorrow evening at 6 PM. So, the fun continues and we have a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor? >> I motion meeting adjourned.
That's right. >> Tomorrow