Is it raining? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Unbelievable. >> Oh my goodness. All right. Have a good meeting. >> Is that where you want it? >> Okay. My broken umbrella.
Broken umbrellas. My broken umbrella. That is so cute. >> I absolutely ador it'll be short and it won't be frozen. >> I don't know. I'm kind of frozen already. You want to lower? So, two more
minutes to go. >> This is my seat there. Okay. The July 22nd special meeting of the Lite Groves Town Council will now come to order. >> Microphone. >> Oh, I need my microphone. If I could
have we could all stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. >> United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. liberty and justice for all >> and I'm sure that everybody's aware but if we could just do a moment of a
silence for Jojo Milano. She was a lady who lived over in the uh acreage and she was a huge animal lover advocate resource for anybody who had any questions about any kind of farm animal. Um and she passed this week after a lot
of suffering especially goats after a lot of suffering. So, if we could just recognize her. Thank you. Okay, Valerie, could I have a roll call? >> Council member Coleman >> here. >> Council member El Ramy >> here. Council member McClendon
>> here. >> Vice Mayor Herszog >> here. >> Is attending via Zoom. Mayor Kaine >> present. >> Town manager Ramalia >> here. Town attorney Torivia >> here >> is appearing via Zoom. Public works
director Galant is not with us today. >> Okay. Uh we're ready for public comments on non-aggenda items. Do we have any of those tonight? >> Yes, Miss Standish. It's not picking up. No. >> Okay.
>> Richard's the mic guy. >> It's not >> Virginia Standish 15410 North Road. Okay. Um, first I'd like to thank the plaza and the town for correcting the
death trap at B Road in Southern Boulevard. It is now a pleasure driving trying to come back to Locks Hatche. I would encourage you to work with Publix to get them to make a left-hand turn out of the northern side of the >> talking about like the pork chop and
everything is really working. >> The pork chop is working great. Nobody's tried to kill I I have not been has seen anyone almost duck get killed at that intersection trying to go out. I do real realize it's hard for people going west. They don't know there's other exits out
of Publix to go west and some of them keep coming out. Um but that's been it's just a major improvement. Just wonderful. So then the other issue is again Publix the northern exit where you can only turn right. It'd be great if people who live in the community could
be allowed to use that to go back into Lockxahhatche Groves. Um, the other thing I would encourage council, if you have not watched the most recent ULDC or the July 7th code enforcement meeting,
please do. Over the years, I have asked in council meetings what staff does in commercial properties if there's issues. And I recall one time Andrew responding, he was a code enforcement officer saying, "Yes, when we go into commercial properties along Southern, we see an
issue. The town works on it." So I see a pattern of inconsistency and how codes are in uh enforced in the commercial properties over the years. And at this particular ULDC meeting, one staff member and again the meeting was about signs, but one committee member did ask
can code not go out and enforce the sign, you know, the issues now. And the response was, "Well, yes, they could if council agreed to make this proactive." So, I was confused because over the years, I've heard different things where code could go into some areas. Um, so there's
just some different information that goes back and forth over the years on existing signs in the commercial area if they can be addressed and what is required by council. The other thing that c caught my attention then was the discussion of amortization
process and needing an impact study. Amortization sounds like it would reset everything. So people who've been in violation are no, you know, are given a shorter window to correct their issues. the co the need for an impact study
was not explained to my satisfaction listening as a resident. Um so I'm just curious if y'all could give the public more information on that when you get it uh to understand how our dollars are being spent. But the thing that really caught
my attention was when it was mentioned there are vested properties. I do have never heard of one vested property being approved. Thank you. >> That's all. >> Okay. Uh then I guess we're on to the
regular agenda item number one. >> May I read the >> Oh, we need to approve the agenda. I'm sorry. A motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Yes. >> I'm making a motion to approve the agenda. >> Okay. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I passes five to >> Thank you, Marge for >> reminding me you're there. Passes five to zero. Okay, now we can move on to item number one, which is our only agenda item tonight. >> Mayor, would you like me to read the resolution title into the record, >> please?
>> A resolution of the town council of the town of Locka Hatchee Gross, Florida, appointing Jeffrey S. Curts Esquire to be employed as the town attorney and providing for an effective date. >> Okay. Who's taking the lead on this item? >> So, I will since I was tasked with um
trying to work this out with Jeff. Um we had some of the issues that came up last time we were here. Uh severance pay was one of the big issues. Um if we decided going in-house didn't work, then we would have an issue with severance. I didn't like the fact that there were
extra benefits in his contract um that were not afforded to other employees. >> And um him and I sat down, we worked through those issues and we came up with a very simple agreement where there is no contract, there's no severance pay.
Um he's treated like the vast majority of the employees here um when it comes to benefits and whatnot. Um, and I think we came up with a pretty good solution as to um, how to move forward with in-house attorney. >> Okay. Anybody have any anything they
want to say? >> Yeah, I have a several questions. Um, I I would I had asked Mr. Curts earlier if he would provide the answers to the same questions that the applicants were posed
um, in the advertisement. And uh I got a call back this afternoon and I asked him to answer these questions um this evening. So >> okay. >> Did you want to ask the questions?
>> Oh well some of them don't apply because um description of organization size lead attorney as well as um other assigned attorneys with accompanying resumeums location primary office. Uh one that would apply would be uh local government
experience which we're familiar with his time here. Uh but uh he also would be asked list uh and describe similar municipal engagement satisfactory performed within the past 3 years. If you've served as general counsel, please
expressly indicate such for each listed municipal client. any known or potential conflicts uh including how the offer intends to address and resolve and whether the offerer has been involved in litigation with the last 5 years or any pending litigation arising out of your
performance and whether the offerer has been involved with any complaints in the Florida bar. I think from a due diligence standpoint, we owe it to that and any potential outside applicants um that have relied on our advertisement to
get those questions answered. >> Does the council want me to respond? >> Sure. >> Um >> Council Person El Remy sent uh that
request. um little before 9:00 this morning. Um I tried to reach out to to her this afternoon. Um and if you know to respond as I understood it, she just wanted to know
something about my background. Um I have been available to uh the council for the last few years and certainly with respect to this you this issue the last few weeks. Um in brief
uh I was admitted to the Delaware bar in 1984. um also admitted to Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Um admitted to Florida in 1986.
Um been practicing law most of that uh time. In 1986, um I moved from Delaware to Florida. um became a member of the in-house uh city
attorney's office in Delray Beach. I was there for three years as an assistant city attorney. Um at which point in time I became the city attorney. So that was the 1990 to93 time period. Um in after
that I I left to open up my own office. Um and I practiced um and my practice included the uh doing defense work for some municipalities, doing forefeite
work for some municipalities. Um I represented uh boards at various municipalities. I represented clients in front of municipalities. Um, in around the 1999 time period, um,
I joined a firm down in, uh, Florida, uh, in Fort Lauderdale. Um, Brinkley Mcernney is what it was known at at that time. It, um, uh, became Brinkley Morgan. My principal function with that
firm um was to assist them as ani assistant uh city attorney for the city of Plantation. Um Don Lenny was the city attorney. Um and we worked together on
that practice. Um shortly after um 9/11 was the first meeting that I covered for um the village of Wellington
as the the city attorney. I was sitting in um at the time for Christine Tatum. Um uh shortly thereafter I was appointed um the city attorney or
the village attorney over there. Um I was still practicing with uh Brinkley and um representing both plantation and the village of
Wellington. Um uh I left um Brinkley uh Morgan. I had become a partner there, but I left um to uh uh join a um
a uh Palm Beach County firm. Um and Glenn Torsivia and I practiced together for what was it about six years, Glenn? Um and I was principally uh working with the the village of Wellington but
assisted in the practice with um other uh folks. Um in about the 2013 2014 time period um the village of Wellington made a
decision to go inhouse. um I chose not to um apply for that in-house position at that point in time. Um and uh I ended up uh leaving Glenn um
and uh establishing my own solo practice. Um uh thereafter I continued to represent some special districts. I've represented um clients in front of municipalities
um and as for the past three years um my uh function has been primarily here as the project coordinator first on a part-time basis and then for the last
two years on a full-time basis. Um uh so I have been practicing law in one form or another for oh my
gosh it's uh 40 plus years. Um I have been a I have been the city attorney um uh somewhere for about 19 or 20 years
of that time period. Um and I have been uh an assistant si city attorney for another five years or so. and I have been practicing
and working with municipalities uh for coming up on um 38 years. Um and all of that when I left uh when I left the firm um that I was working with in Wilmington, Delaware
to so my I wanted to come down to Florida and my and my wife is a native of plantation. Um, I left that firm. Um, and they had uh hired my replacement
and one of the things I was working on was uh a plat. And I thought to myself, and I said this out loud, well, at least I'm never going to have to deal with plats again because I was going to do litigation down here in in Delh in
Delray Beach. And uh lo and behold the 38 years later I now know something about plaids. >> Yeah. >> Any known potential or actual conflicts? >> No. >> No. Um involved in litigation with the
last 5 years or any pending litigation arising out of your performance? >> No. >> No. And uh been involved in any complaints with the Florida Bar within the last five years arising out of your performance? >> No. No. And thank you for that and thank you
that council. Um so when we were here two meetings prior, you had no desire to negotiate down. So kudos Todd um to negotiating down significantly um what you were standing quite strongly
in your position. Um, I would like to understand the resolution versus the contract. And um, I think that that's something perhaps Glenn could speak to as far as
how that differs in that model. Um, from a legal liability standpoint, um, who benefits and how from a from a resolution versus an actual contract. So, Madame Mayor, um,
>> no, but >> what's that? >> Go, go ahead. >> That's Lisa Glenn. >> Lisa who asked the question. >> Oh, okay. Um, I understand she asked the question. I was just going through the chair. Um anyway, um when uh when when
Jeff uh provided me with the resolution, um we then both of us checked the charter and the charter actually requires that the town attorney be employed by contract by an agreement. So uh my understanding and Todd correct me
uh if I'm wrong, but understanding was that council member Clinton really didn't want a contract. Um and so trying to thread the needle with the requirement of the charter that you have to have a contract and I believe his desire to just have a resolution we came
up with the solution of basically converting the resolution into a very short contract and that's why the towards the bottom of the resolution it says uh agreed to and accepted uh by Mr. Kurtz. Uh and then in one of the whereas
clauses I believe it indicates that um you know this is an agreement. So this resolution is is an agreement. I mean you're turning it into an agreement. I know that's a little unusual. Normally you have a resolution and an agreement attached to it that might be a little
more robust, but this meets the minimum requirements for an agreement. It sets forth, you know, the salary, the compensation. Uh so if you um you know are comfortable moving forward with the resolution realize that it is an actual
agreement. >> Okay. Would that um as a relatively loosely defined agreement on certain terms? Are we are we taking on a greater legal liability under potential termination
or other possible future actions that because it's not spelled out in the resolution, we would have a stronger legal position if it was a contract. >> This is a lawyer's favorite answer. It
depends. And I I mean that in the sense of it depends on if the new contract if the parties agree if the this contract does not make any mention of severance pay. So under Florida law there would be no severance pay. Um if you were having
like I said a more robust contract you would address that directly. You would say clearly there is no severance pay or you would say clearly there is severance pay and how much it is. So, um, it depends on what is reaching the agreement. In terms of the terms of this
agreement, you know, this says, you know, pull it up and and read it. Um, you know, be the town attorney. I'll have a salary of 135 $135,000. Um, it talks about him getting all of
the benefits uh in accordance with the um personnel policy of the town. He'll get the same cost of living as the other town employees. You can increase it more than that if you wanted to in your sole discretion.
You're going to pay professional dues and subscriptions uh like in the Florida bar. And he gets into the Florida retirement system at a senior management class. He's already in the system, I believe, but this would be a senior class, which I think you've talked about before. And then he signs it. Um, so it
would you then revert to basic law. So for example, the charter would require four votes whether you have a agreement or not to to terminate uh the attorney. So that would still apply even though it's not laid out in the contract. The no severance would apply even though
it's not laid out in the contract. So again it comes back to if you can come to an agreement and remember last time last two times there was a difficulty coming together on an agreement. So, this is a very, you know, it's a barebones agreement, but it is an
agreement. >> Okay. Um, back to the council. Thank you, Mr. Tarivia. Back to the council. Um, as we consider the hiring of Mr. Curts as the town attorney, I've only been sitting here since March, and I can't tell you
how many times we were told that Mr. Kurts have been tasked with certain assignments, whether they were policy um documentation or um ordinances and resolutions that Mr. Torcivia has stated
ended up at his legal firm at the last minute to be completed on time. And I know there's been some discussion of moving forward with continuing to interview the applicants that we won't be seeing until next Monday. uh and
possibly hiring an outside firm in addition to I want to make sure that anything that there's a shortfall with in-house timing and deadlines doesn't end up getting sent out to any kind of outside council to get completed. Um so
job performance I think has been something to date that has been lacking in in Mr. Curts's capacities. Um, and I think this whole thing started a year ago under the the idea that this
was going to reduce cost. And I I say again, this sets the bar at a new height. This does not reduce cost. And it seems to me that this is actually not a cost reduction exercise. It's an employment exercise. And if that's the
case, then I think we should drop the ruse that this is actually a cost reduction exercise. So, um, and lastly stating that the last time Mr. McClendon and Miss Kaine served up here on council, they fired the town
attorney and it ended up costing us about $100,000 to make that agreement go away. Yeah, Todd. It did. >> We didn't fire the town attorney. >> I'm sorry, the town manager. My bad. So, that that ended up costing us 100,000. I would be concerned that as we look at
this open-ended agreement that we make sure we put a time limit on this of no more than a year because we want to make sure it's going to work. It's going to work for Mr. Curts. It's going to work for the town and it's not going to be something that ends up costing us money to get out of. Those are my comments.
Thank you. >> So go ahead. Would you like to you that and I agree with you about the severance pay and all that and that's exactly why we worked to this point there is no severance Glenn just confirmed that if it's not in here then there's no severance. That was the whole point of
negotiating and trying to come to some kind of agreement with him where if in six months from now, forget about a year, if in six months from now it's not working out, four of us can terminate him on the spot. There is no severance pay. We don't have to give notice, anything like that. So that was kind of the idea why him and I worked together
to come up with this agreement. >> Well, given his performance to date, >> well, >> hiring him as in house attorney already seems like one big, you know, >> in his in his not necessarily in his defense, but we talked about you talked about he comes up with a resolution,
sends it to the town attorney, and it's last minute, and they don't get it back, and there's fingerpointing. Guess what? There won't be fingerpointing anymore, right? He's it. There won't be any fingerpointing. the buck stopped with him now. So he can't say it was Glenn or it was this attorney or if we hired
another firm and he stays in the position he's at. It stops that fingerpointing. That no longer can happen. He is the one responsible for any legal matters. >> Sets the cost at $360,000. >> The cost I think a little less with the S. I was just going to I was just going
to ask have you I can just interject if have you run new figures with this is a this is a lesser salary with a lesser benefits package you were at 360 including in-house counsel and a parallegal previously does this reduce the number
by any significant amount >> the proposed the proposed budget on an annualized basis would uh remain at $360,000 and it includes includes 50,000 and change um in outside council fees.
>> So it includes all legal. So I agree with you after taking another look at it that it's not necessarily going to reduce legal costs, but it's going to set them >> right now. Historically, they've been over $400,000 with the firm we're at for
the last three years. That's where they've been. >> Well, the firm was our firm before the last three years. So there has been a change in the last three years that drove up legal cost. Perhaps there were lawsuits. Perhaps there were additional issues that came up that drove them up.
But we have seen repeatedly that and it was provided by our current council what was driving up legal cost. So I'm concerned that we are setting our cost moving forward at a new high that
historically was not the case. Okay, Paul, did you have something you wanted to say? >> Yeah, I have a I have a couple questions. First, this one's for Glenn. Um, can without, you know, three novels, can can you tell us what the the pros
and the cons versus like liability offset for having inside and outside counsel? Because I know there's been some discussion about that around that that you actually open yourself up more for inside. Do you get where I'm going with my question? >> So, so in general,
larger cities, I I'll say 50,000 45,000 population will have an in-house attorney. So, there's six cities in Palm Beach County that have in-house attorneys. West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Boon Beach, Riviera Beach, Wellington, and uh
one other I can't remember. So, um, and and the reason is when you become a bigger city, you generally have more complex issues and all of those cities will have more than one in-house attorney. I mean, Wellington started with just Lori as the in-house attorney.
I think now they have three. So, uh, this this try not to make it three novels, Councilman Paul. The um the difficulty is there's no one lawyer I think on the face of the earth that knows all the issues that are going to confront the city. That's why Jeff talks
about having an outside firm, even if it's at 50,000 a year. And if that's your intention, you should probably have an agreement with that firm that caps it at that number and that they can't go over that number without council approval before they go over that number. Um otherwise it's very easy to
go over the number because you do run into complicated issues, complex issues, personnel issues, whatever they happen to be. So it's hard to be a oneperson shop. Now this is an interesting experiment because you are smaller.
Maybe it's possible that one attorney and Jeff has decades of experience can perform most of the functions and you might not need an outside lawyer that much. That's to be determined. I mean this is again you guys are in in a little bit of experimental area and
that's not the first time Locket Groves wants to be a little bold and daring. So um I hope that answers your question. That's the that's the key part is that no one person can do it all. So you're going to need some outside help at some point. The question is, are the efficiencies that you're hoping to
obtain by having somebody in house working handinhand with the management going to offset any increased fees? >> Marge is waving her hand. Yes, Marge. >> Yes. I wanted to know um does this uh
agreement uh consider any assistance to um Mr. Curts? Um what did he call him? Parallegals. Yes. Well, the whole I don't think this agreement does, but it was part of the budget item. Yes. The budget number
amount that we're talking about, the 360 that we're talking about includes a parallegal and an out and $50,000 for outside counsel. >> Okay. And that's what uh Todd had worked on and got an agreement. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Todd, you were next. So, one of the things that I discussed today um with Francine and Jeff was the fact that there are a lot of pending legal items that have been sitting for a long time. And I'm not saying it's Glenn fault or Francine, forget about whose fault it
is, but there's a lot of legal issues that have been sitting not getting done. And hopefully we can with having Jeff here full-time, we can start addressing those things. Horse manure, all the different things, sign codes, right, that went back and forth, all of those things. So, if you took those things and
let's say Glenn's firm did those in the past year, he'd be at 550,000, right? So, there might be a cost savings in the fact that we're going to start getting things done that haven't been getting done. >> Oh, >> okay. Sorry, I wasn't I wasn't done.
>> I'm sorry. >> It's I just I was just turning on my life because I was speaking, so I'll just leave it on till I'm done, I guess. >> Um All right. So, um, yeah, I I just I don't like this. This is the second item that's come before us that it's
like this shotgun, for lack of better term, shotgun wedding type of scenario. It's it's this there's a fire and it's got to happen right now. And it just doesn't seem to me. We said, you know, not too long ago, we want to advertise this and put it out. I guess, you know,
maybe not everybody was in agreement with advertising and putting it out, but I I you know, you're going to bring somebody from in-house, and this is nothing that I haven't said to Jeff, so it's not surprise, but you know, it's it if you open a position somewhere, and I
realize this is a contract position, and we don't technically have to, but when you open a position somewhere, usually give time for applicants to apply. You don't put off the advertisement for a week, then advertise it, and then have this this, you know, I I just I I don't
I don't like this hurry up, hurry up, hurry up, you know, I don't in my mind, and I I realize Glenn is he's thrown his hands up and he's done. I get that. But he also said he'd hang out. I I you know, I don't know. I I I think he would hang out another month if we had, you
know, if we were working on something. actually put the 21st of August as his drop dead at the last meeting. Just FYI, >> right? Well, we're in July. >> I understand. >> Okay. So, so I'm just saying we we I I know it's less than a month, but we we we called a special meeting lickety
split, right? Because we we need to do this. And I just I I I I don't know of anything. I can't think of anything off top of my head right now unless there's something that just pops up like there's a major catastrophe or something that would deem that we have
to do this yesterday and this is the way it's been treated and I I I just want to go on record of saying I I don't agree with the way it was treated. So, but we're here to make a decision and we're here to we're here to vote on. So, but I
I to to say that that somebody made a comment about the the the cost not going over 330. It's going to be 330. I just did some quick math and correct me, you know, or forgive me if I'm wrong, but if we bring Mr. Curts in $5,000 over the original, and I know we're not negotiating, but I just want
to put this out there. Uh $5,000 over the initial ask tomorrow because that's what it states. um that and he's eligible for COLA. So if we increase the COLA 6% this year, just say that happens, that raises
another 8100. So he's 143 before 26 even happens, right? So 26, say we do another 6% because we're staying in line with everybody. That that bumps to 151. That's another 8,500, right? 27, he's
$20,000 over what he would give if he was doing the contract. It's 160,787. The contract said 140. And not for nothing, full disclosure, when I talked to Glenn before we had our meeting last time or excuse me, to Jeff, whereas I I
I put out there like a year probation or a year, you know, getting used to it because this is new to the town. This is new to us. It's new to me. It's new to I whatever. And it was an emphatic no. And I realized that you guys sat down and you had a conversation. you hammer some
stuff out. But I mean, so we're looking at So I mean, I don't know what the base price, the base salary for the parallegal would be, but you know, there's 6% on top of those. So you're looking we're going to be over 400,000 by 27.
I mean I if it's 330 now, I mean that just with retirement, etc., etc. So, we just need to take all this into consideration because I mean, you know, it's not like it's 135 now and we're going to wait on the cola for 26 because he's not going to get a full
year salary, right? You f you see where I'm going? >> I'm following up, but we we don't generally give 6% cola. But I I'm following >> what was the what was the Okay. What was the cola last last year? What was the cola? Because we did they did approve a cola. I I remember
>> we did approve a 6%. So it was six, >> but there had not been cola for any of the previous >> how many? >> I think it was three. >> I'm not. >> So two 2% essentially. Okay. >> For each year that came out. >> Full disclosure is a gentleman who gets a COLA based on a bargaining agreement
with a a union that I don't even belong to because I'm a non-bargain unit. >> I'm not arguing the cola. >> There's definitely a cost of living problem. There's an inflation problem, etc. My point is when you factor in the cola at the 6% that we gave last year if that was to come up this is just how it
breaks down. That's all I'm saying. I mean, you know, and then again, I think Lisa said there's no end date to this. There is no end date to this resolution period. There's not a hey, let's revisit in three years. Hey, let's revisit in four years. Let's revisit one. There's no end date period. So, it's like
>> because the end date could be the day after tomorrow if we decide it's not working. >> I get that. But it it brings me back to what I said and I I guess I was told by a couple people I wasn't truly to totally clear last time. the the last thing that was before we left that was proposed was a six-month which I six
months whatever you know it still takes a 4-1 to to terminate right so the six month there's no skin in the game right because it takes 4-1 so if not if four people up here aren't in agreeance that that the person who whether it's Jeff or
Jimmy or Tom is meeting the mark or Susie sorry I don't want to leave anybody out right isn't meeting the mark it takes four people right so there's no skin in the game I guess is my point that that's I mean I I think there should be a revisit date
or some there there's I think there should be some kind of terminology in here that says this gets revisited. You know, maybe there's a there there's a there's a term in here that says, you know, you have this kind of anonymity to to to to
penalty for a year and then after that, we're going to revisit in three because basically you've entered into open-end contract. So, until you get four people to agree up here or Jeff gets tired of us griping at him, he's in perpetuity.
That's my only thing because the charter says it's got to be a 4-1. It's not a 3-2. So it's 4-1, right? Super majority, correct? Am I correct, Todd? >> You are correct. >> Okay, those are my two cents. >> You done with your two cents now? >> Okay, Todd. >> So, as a county employee, when do they
revisit you? Do they revisit every two years or five years or you're an employee and you have your job as long as you're doing a good job, right? That's how it works as an employee. And that's what this is. This is making him an employee, not under a contract. It doesn't take a 4-1 vote to to to take me
out of where I am. It does. That's that that's the issue, Todd. And that's what I'm trying to get at. It's not like he gets a he gets three writeups in a bad review and it's called Okay, that's it. You're ter, you know, that's, you know, it's still up to four people sitting up here. Whether it's the five of us still
sitting up here or in March it's it's two more people are sitting up. >> I'd be willing to bet it's harder to get rid of than us to get rid of him. with your county job, right? >> I'm not al I'm not I'm not a You're bringing something in that doesn't belong. I'm not a contract employee, right?
>> I'm not a I am a prof licensed professional, but I'm not a contract employee. So, you know, >> he's not going to be a contract employ. >> But the charter states he's got to be a contract employee. H how how do you do that without doing a resolution or referendum to change the charter, Todd? You can't do that. But >> but he's not under a contract. It's a
resolution. It's a simple a very simple agreement. Doesn't it say at the end >> I know it says something here about like it it it basically moves into a contract. It's the same it's it's it's trying to meet the Glenn's words that we're trying to satisfy the contract
without having a contract basically not quote unquote Glenn. Sorry. No quotes. >> No. I mean this is a contract. There's no no getting around it. This is an agreement. We we've taken a resolution and added a line for Jeff to sign and some language. This becomes a binding agreement,
>> which is a contract. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, don't get me wrong, but a binding agreement is a binding agreement. >> So, Glenn, it it doesn't say contract. What it says is the town attorney shall be employed under the terms and conditions deemed advisable by the town council, which may include an
appointment of a law firm. That doesn't say contract. the the the charter requires that the town attorney be hired by an agreement contract. They're the same words. Same thing. And
>> I just I just read the charter to you, Glenn. Shall be employed under terms and conditions deemed advisable by the town council. Doesn't say contract. >> Let me uh let me go to the charter and pull that up because I think Jeff and I both read the charter and we both agreed
that you have to have a contract. Give me a minute to find the charter. >> I did have my light on before Todd, so no problem. Paying so much attention to riveted. And yes, Paul, thank you for
doing the math. And the F FRS um upper management, I'm sure I'm butchering that. Um is 33.24% contribution from the town. Um and Mr. Curts's would be 3%. And Todd, I would uh point out to you that the manure
thing we've already spent over $13,000 with the current town attorney on and I've questioned whether we can even legally ever implement that. And the sign ordinance by council from June of 24 was supposed to go back to ULDC with the suggested changes and now we're looking at a new sign ordinance
potentially with amortization that's going to potentially put back code enforcement on those signs for another five to seven years. So when we talk about postponed legal and we talk about how the town never moves forward because we keep revisiting stuff, this is the
third meeting discussing Mr. Kurts and we've yet to actually successfully implement what we set out to do with a 4 to1 vote which said put it out to advertisement. So my two cents.
Anybody else have anything they want to say? Marge, anything you want to say? >> No, I'm okay. >> Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? >> Yes, we do. Miss Andish Virginia Standish 15410 Northridge. So, I'm just going to recap what I've heard
come from you, council. Some of my comments can apply to any staff position. Basically, I've heard that other towns that have in-house council typically have populations of 50,000 plus. So, our town has a population of
less than 4,000 and we're going for in-house counsel. We've had discussion back and forth of what our charter says, whether it should be a contract or an agreement or what council decides. Uh, we all know that a contract is an
agreement, but an agreement is not necessarily a contract. What has been presented here appears to be a never-ending agreement. As was pointed out, there's no end date. Excuse me. Wow. Could I get that
contract? No end date. So, obviously that needs to be revisited. Um, a 4 to one vote again, another nightmare. Are we hiring in-house counsel as a staff person? Why
is there no end date? My concern is the town seems to be declining to do due diligence. Again, this can apply to any position. Uh my concern there is can the town be sued by others who may have wanted to seek this
position because the town chooses not to do due diligence. Um there's mention of Mr. Curts having outside clients. Have those been presented? Is there any conflict? Is there any conflict with his teaching? As
with any position, have any of his references been contacted outside of town references? Um, as any position would require. And what happens on day two? What are
the costs? If day one he's hired, great. And day two he decides he's no longer working for us. that needs to be uh explained to the public, not what we think might happen. We've we've read this, so tell us what the end date is of
this agreement or do we have a never neverending person in place? Um and really again, the contract, you know, the charter says it's ambiguous now what the contract uh the charter saying. So, it's a good thing
we're having a charter review committee. And I would encourage you all to review more than the one topic that I've heard discussed. Um, this just brings up a lot of concerns as as to this why there is no contract. Um, and I will share with
you I just have a lack of confidence and again this goes to any position. I realize council negotiates with vendors all the time, but when you're hiring a staff person that you have to deal with, it seems it's more appropriate for an outside HR person or attorney to be
doing the negotiating. >> Miss Grungy, Cynthia Scrunchie 15349 collecting canal. The simple definition of contract is an agreement between two parties. I mean, Glenn, you know,
legally what you're doing is you're negotiating contracts. Todd, I'm sorry, but I find it grossly inappropriate that you would be the person to negotiate with Jeff on this issue. I mean, it's
everything that you people do. Does anybody know what the sunshine laws are? Does anybody know how many times you violate the sunshine laws in any given meeting? I reached out to you and Mr. Torcivia prior to this, expressing my
concerns. I then sent Francine and Mr. Torcivia videos of you meeting privately with Jeff during the last town council meeting. And you know it's you haven't
interviewed, you've got an ad out there running. You're you're proposing that this town accept an open-ended contract with an employee with a less than acceptable history as an employee.
You've said so yourselves, but you continue to ramrod this through. And why? What's the rush? Just like you said, Paul, you're 100% right and good for you for saying it. There's no rush. Mr. Torcivia is not leaving. And you
know what? In the letter that I saw attached to the today's agenda, he gave his date based on this meeting. So if you do what's right and not go forward with this tonight because there's absolutely no reason you don't know so
many of the details that you should know to enter into any kind of agreement contract with any employee or firm. But you for some reason this has got to be got to be shoved down everyone's throats
tonight. And that's what happens with this town. It's just it's crazy. And that's why you have people like me and many other citizens crossing our tees and dotting our eyes because the attorney general is going to be contacted with this. You've got to
start playing by the rules and not making them up as you go. Much >> would you like to respond to the accusation that sunshine law was violated just so that um we can have that on the record?
>> I said sunshine law was vi has been violated in an ongoing places. No, no, no. If you if you want to redirect, I will redirect. I said specifically that the sunshine laws have been violated on an ongoing basis given council's
actions not just during not just for this you want a list I'll be happy to send you a list Glenn I'll be happy to put together a list and it's going to be a long one thank you >> Mr. Tivia would you like to please respond for the record to the allegation
that Mr. Clinton was breaking sunshine law when he when he negotiated with Mr. >> Mr. Tivio when I sent you that video of of Mr. Kurt leaving with Glenn with Todd during the No, you can you can let me
clarify >> leaving with Todd during the last council meeting to address something in private along with that is a violation of the sunshine laws. >> Okay. Thank you for your comment. Mr. Torivi, would you like to respond to
that, please? >> No, I would not like to respond to that because I have no idea what individuals do privately. I don't know whether there's been violations or not. I'm not aware of any violations, but I can't >> The fact that he left during ma'am, I'm
trying to clarify the fact that he left during the council meeting >> Glenn is a a direct violation. Thank you, Todd. Would you please like to to speak now? >> Glenn, if I meet with Jeff Curts, just the two of us, is there a Sunshine Law violation
with me discussing anything with Jeff >> during a council meeting? >> You you can meet with the staff person, which Jeff is. You cannot meet council member. Correct. >> At any time about any subject, correct? >> During a council meeting, Jeff, >> during a council meeting, after a
council meeting, at any time. >> Yep. I'll send you the law, >> Glenn. I'll send you the statute. >> Yeah, if you're you're meeting with the staff person, which Jeff is, then you're allowed to meet with the staff person. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll send you very much. Any more public
comments, Miss Huji? >> And I do have that charter question, but I'll wait until after public comment. >> Oh, the answer to Todd's question. >> Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. Fanel is telling me my electric's on. Yes,
>> the 29 club has power. >> It might go off again. So, 29 people. Um, Cassie Suchi. So, um, I I just wanted to bring up a couple things that disturbed me. First of all, um, I I agree with Paul on a lot of
things. Thank you for reducing this down to some of the craziness that we've we've had, but there is still a lot of problems with it, I think. And I think we're not doing our due diligence. you guys were elected to basically make sure you answer some of the questions that
Paul brought up, making sure that we interview the other attorneys. This disturbed me when Glenn says, "Well, you know, we're a town, a small town, and this is kind of an experiment." I don't think we should be voting on an experiment that's going to set the bar
of the cost of attorney fees higher than what it normally was. When we entered into this, I remember Todd coming up when he was in the audience, you know, attorney fees are too high. They are too high. And that was we got to lower the attorney fees. Well, doesn't seem like
we're lowering them. It's now being raised to 350,000. Yes, he has a salary of 135, but he's going up to the what? Special administrative category in the FRS, which adds another 45,000 a year that the town is liable to pay.
He doesn't get it directly. goes to his F FRS. So that's what 180,000. Um we're going to have an outside firm and another employee with long-term benefits. So I just I'm very concerned the fact that this was about reducing
costs and we seem to be oh it's okay. We're just going to raise the cost. We'll raise millage. We'll raise the acreage assessment because we're going to raise the cost on the attorneys. We need to go through what you guys voted on and interview everyone. And I remember you saying, Todd, uh, when you
guys made that vote, perhaps Jeff will come up and he'll be a firm and he can he can apply. And I remember you also saying, which I agreed with you, uh, firm has no liabilities, nothing. They can leave tomorrow. We don't have to pay FRS. We don't have to pay health insurance. So, I don't think you're
doing due diligence, and I don't think it's fair to the people that elected you up there. You need to slow down. You need to make sure you get all the questions answered. And I'm very concerned with it not having an end. I know it's and I I understand because I've I've talked to Todd a little bit.
Um but I'm still kind of confused. How is there no end? And then it's going to take four to one, which is a very hard hurdle to um achieve sometimes. So, I'm very concerned about the cost and some of the other issues and I would implore
you guys to please slow down, go through what you did, interview these other firms. Jeff put in for the interview as well and if he comes out on top then that's great. But I don't think Lockach Grove should be an experiment and I was very concerned when Glenn described it as that because we're a town of less
than 4,000. I don't think we need to have all these exorbitant costs. Thank you. >> Any more public comments? >> No, mayor. Okay, Todd. >> You know, when we got when I was up here before and we got rid of Underwood Management, one of the issues was everybody was up in arms that we had a
contract management government here and they didn't like the fact that we didn't have control over it. HR was underwood management. Nobody liked that. Everybody said we need to have employees, we need to have employees. And the same people that were saying everybody should be employees and we shouldn't have contract with firms, now we're saying the
opposite. We shouldn't have an employee and we should have a contract with a firm. Seems ironic that the position has changed based on the circumstances like that instead of across the board. We should just have employees here which is what has been happening over time since under what's gone. We've moved to more and more having in-house people as
opposed to contracts. So just leave it at that. Thank you >> Paul. >> Oh, Lisa had her light on. >> Oh, did you have your light on first? >> Sorry, Lisa. >> Yeah, Todd, I think that's an a great comment. I I went back and spoke with Dave Autry, one of our first council
members, and asked him why the supermajority was chosen um as as a means of um getting rid of um people that are no longer functioning for the town's purposes. And as he recalled it
being with contract management, they wanted to encourage these contract uh companies to apply and give them some stability. And I think when we did switch over to the employee model that that was possibly something we should have considered at the time, switching
to a simple majority vote and a supermajority to hire so the bar was higher for people to get in the door versus out of the door. And and lastly, um I do have another question for Mr. Curts. uh in your capacities as town attorney previously I think you you said
that you were always part of a legal firm providing or were you hired in-house before >> um the Delray Beach experience was in-house um and uh the plantation and the village
of Wellington experience was as members of the firm. >> Okay. And Delray was back in the 90s I think was your timeline. >> Yeah. >> Okay. 1986 to 9394. >> So given your your association with the
town to date as an employee under the town manager, do you anticipate any challenges functioning independently um from the town manager as the legal council to the town council? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Paul. >> I'd just like to revisit. Isn't one of the complaints the reason that we wanted to get away from the contract model and their in-house HR and everything was because of the rampant nepotism that was happening within that contract model.
the contractor that we had hired, the vendor we had hired to do it and there was a lot of shortfalls happening that were getting >> I think it was a lot >> that was certainly >> Yeah. But I Yeah, >> it was rampant next to them. I believe it was just the
>> single singh. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, it was. But I guess my my point is is is it wasn't it wasn't the contract management. I think it was the contract order. Well, >> and I think the the the easy fix the fix at the time the the fix was I'm not saying I want to let's go back to
contract management. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying you're you're asking why why you know this is different whatever. I I think you know yeah there is a a certain spot that you know and I'm not saying that in house is
bad. I'm not saying in I'm just I'm just going down and I'm getting, you know, just all again the shotgun wedding type of scenario that we're dealing with here. You know, there's no end date. There's no, you know, and I don't that's
where I'm at. It's It's not that I think one model's better than the other. I get what you're saying. We said it now, but you know, when you add in the FRS and all that stuff, it bumps over $400,000 for the first year. >> No. >> No. >> No. What's uh
>> can I just go ahead interrupt your thought question just to ask a question Francine can you give me some idea of how many people have responded how many firms have responded for on next Monday night >> or is it Monday or Tuesday whatever next week >> Monday >> Monday night
>> each firm was called and only one responded with a message and that was um our special magistrate who said that their practice didn't have the capacity right now um to be the
full-time counsel and they loved being our magistrate but haven't really had any calls or questions no emails nothing I mean if I missed it it wasn't a lot >> so we have no nobody who is planning to
come next Monday and present at this time >> not that I know of but I don't know because the deadline is Friday at 5:00 pm. >> Okay. And is that kind of standard for people to come in at the I I I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with um with government
um hiring that way for us. Is that that's pretty standard? >> I think I think most people do it the day before the day of >> the day before. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> That's all. >> I just wanted clarification on that. >> If you remember, right, I I asked if we
could do both the same night, right? And Glenn recommended against doing that. He said that was not a good plan to do. So that's how we ended up with year tonight and firms next Monday or whatever it is. I would have preferred to do them the same night, but Glenn recommended
against that. >> Would you like a motion? >> Well, and Paul, >> I mean, listen, I I Yeah, I mean Well, and it's just it's 47,000 plus or minus a couple hundred bucks for the first year FRS.
So just for argument sake let's take that half for the parallegal right so you got another so that's 190 plus another half that's 20 that's 210 then say they're getting 70 a year just for round numbers I'm not saying whatever
but you know 210 that's 70 that's 280 right that's just with the FRS that's not with with insurance and all this other stuff you follow you follow what I'm saying that's why I'm saying you're taking that 330 and you're getting way close to 400 just in the first year Keep in mind, we're getting double the amount
of manh hours of what we're paying now, right? So, what we're paying now is about 1,500 hours as what we paid Glenn's law firm last year. With two employees here, we're going to be at 3,000 man hours. Surely, we're going to get a lot more work in production out of double the amount of hours. If not,
we're going to have a problem, right? >> That is how government works, right? You put in more hours, you get more output, right? That's historical. >> That's >> I'm from the government. I'm here to help. >> I'm not saying we're going to get double the amount. I'm not saying that. But we're gonna double the amount of hours. Surely we're gonna get more stuff done and we have a lot on the plate to get
done. So I think Glenn has his answer. >> I'm sorry, Glenn, you had something that you wanted to contribute. >> Yeah. So the um the charter it it's a little harder to find because it doesn't just say under the attorney. Let me read you a couple of sentences. So it's in section four and paragraph one says
designation of charter officers. The town manager and the town attorney are designated as charter officers. And then uh you go down to section 2B, it says 2C rather. It says the compensation of the charter officers,
town attorney, town manager uh shall be fixed by the council through the approval of an acceptable employment contract. So the charter does say that you have to have an employment contract with your manager and your attorney. Hence why we took the resolution. And
again, my understanding, you know, from talking to Jeff was that council member McClendon, he said it tonight, prefer not to have a contract, but the charter requires one. So that's why we took, you know, I'll almost say the resolution and turned it into contract light so that
there is a contract because Jeff is signing it and that does become an agreement between the town and and Mr. Kurtz. So, so I guess section 4A is kind of a conflict, right? Because 4A kind of lays it out different.
>> Put that on the chart of review list. >> But generally when you have a conflict, you go with the more strict Todd. >> That's how conflicts work. >> So So 4 A says the town attorney shall be employed under terms and conditions deemed advisable by the town council. And 2B or rather 2C says that
compensation shall be fixed through an acceptable employment contract. So you are setting the terms and conditions under for D for uh A the terms and conditions but it also says you have to have an agreement.
Hence the reason why we turn the resolution into an agreement. Now again if you want to go back to an agreement agreement kind of like Jeff proposed before we could put the same terms that are in the resolution in a document. I don't think you need to do that, but if
you want to, you can. But I just wanted to be clear. This is an agreement. I don't want anybody to walk out of here thinking this is simply a resolution and we can repeal the resolution next week. You know, this is an agreement. >> And because he's been hired only as an
employee, he's still because he's the town at because he's the town attorney as a charter officer. So that's where the supermajority thing kicks in to get rid of it should should we decide to do that and that's kind of a little bit of a
hold up. So the comfort level of having it be just an employment agreement as opposed to a contract for lack of a better term but an employment agreement as opposed to an employment contract. the comfort level of that really kind of
just took care of the concern about the 20 weeks of severance pay. Um, but it doesn't really cover the the concern about end date or termination or something like that. Am I
accurate? >> I think that's a good summary. A good sum. Okay. >> All right. So, do we address that? What do we do? I thought coming out of a contract where he wasn't we weren't bound by a contract was the way to go. I thought who could
go who could go against this, right? We're not bound with a contract anymore. We're not stuck with this stuck with that contract. And >> how are you? It takes a 41 vote, my friend. >> You still take it even if you had a contract to get rid of it. If you had a 5-year contract,
>> you're you're trying you're trying to sell it like he like he's hiring on as an employee. He's a still a contract employee. If he's hiring on as an employee and he derelicked in his duties, he gets >> Yeah. He gets Yeah. Okay. As a charter officer, he's if he's derelicked in his
if he's derelictked in his duties, Francine writes him up and sends him packing. That's the process. Well, I'm sure it's more involved than that, right? But I'm just saying ultimately if he's just an employee, right? And Jeeoff, I'm not picking on you. I'm just I'm I'm fine details.
Okay. The thing is is if if if three of us feel that Jeff isn't meeting the mark, we're still short one person. You, Lisa, and myself could stand up here and go, Jeff, you haven't been meeting the mark. But if Anita's not buying in or Marge isn't buying in and doesn't and oh, Jeff's great. Guess what? We're out
of gas in perpetuity because there's no end date. >> Well, that's that's true of any charter officer. I I agree, but I'm just >> Yeah, but when the town attorney is an outside firm, the the meter's not running because we can't agree. By bringing it in house, the meter runs
constantly >> by going outside law. >> We have to going outside. We still have to have legal representation for things. We can't not use an attorney. >> Glenn. >> Yeah, but we're not using them every day and sending them on vacation and paying their insurance. >> Glenn, I got a question for you. If
three council members appear wanted to cancel your contract, how would that leave us with the fact that you or whoever has designated your firm right now as the as the town attorney, how would that play out? >> All right. So, so if I had not resigned, I would still be your attorney and it
would take four of you to unwind that >> and even if even under contract, >> doesn't matter how it is, right? The charter says it takes four. What do they have? >> So, we're in that position now. That's my point. But we're not paying him any benefits or salary. >> But we have to have a town attorney.
>> But we only have a town attorney when we reach out and say, "Hey, town attorney, do some work for us." >> So So that if you go to attorney gym next door and go, "Hey, listen." And you just leave. Yeah, we have a contract with him, but we don't use him. You don't You wouldn't be paying Glenn. You'd be paying
>> this other attorney couldn't represent the town unless we terminated him with four people and made this other person the town attorney. It would still take four people to get rid of. >> You can't have multiple representation. >> No, you can have one town attorney. Then you can't have 10 town attorneys because
it's a charter officer. One town attorney and you can have five underneath that, but that town attorney is the one that dictates whether they're five. >> I think you're you're apples and oranges though, Todd. You're saying it takes four votes. We're agreeing that it takes four votes, but it's not taking four votes to get rid of somebody that's a
salaried on the >> We want to get rid of Glenn right now. It takes four votes. It doesn't matter. >> He's under contract, but he cost us zero until we say, "Give us an X. Give us a Y." >> Should we shut down the town? We would have to shut down the town because we can't approve any contracts or have him
do anything, which means no more contracts go out the door because we're stuck with Glenn because we don't have four people and we're not going to use them. We're not going to pay him. But he's not going to approve any contracts. So, the town effectively stops immediately. >> You're That's a conflated argument. It's
that doesn't hold water. Sorry. Glenn, am I wrong in that? He's got his hand up. >> So, I don't know if you remember, but a couple of months ago, I did a a memo about legal analysis and fees. And I suggested because you do have the charter requirement of the four votes
that for the two charter officers, whether it's me, whether it's Jeff, whether it's Francine, no matter who it is, I always recommend a short contract because otherwise you do have the four vote conundrum. If if I'm the employee, if I'm the outside contractor, I love the four votes. I could have stayed with
you guys probably for another 10 years because to get four votes is very difficult. So, um, you know, that's why you have a contract that's one year or two years. So, at the end of the contract term, the contract is over. The contract protects you. Jeff's not going
to like me saying this. Francine's not going to like me saying this, but my obligation is to you as the council. And if the council wants to maintain some level of control over who is your town attorney or who is your town manager, who is your charter officer, the best
way to do that is to have a shorter term contract where every year they need to get three votes to stay employed as opposed to four votes to get fired. And that is that is gives you the most control you can have under this system
that the the founders of the town set up with the four votes. So that's why I think Mr. Coleman was talking about, you know, whether you call the probation at the last meeting or one year at this meeting, whether I was suggesting that when we were talking about Francine's contract, it's the same concept. You know, every time you do a long-term
agreement, you have that person until four of you can agree. And let's face it, four out of five people in any setting is very difficult to get to that number. >> It's an 80% hurdle. >> It's a high hurdle. And again, the town,
you have that in your town charter in a few places and for good reason. So if you want to maintain a level of control, the best way to do that is to give yourself that control in the contract because once the contract ends, the employment ends, the contract ends and that person is no longer the town
attorney or the town manager. They then have to basically readition reition for the job. I I have a a city where every year they have to vote to approve my contract. And if they don't, they don't. If I don't have three votes, I don't want to be there.
>> How many years is your current contract, Glenn? >> It's open-ended. That's why if if if I hadn't resigned, then I would be your attorney until four of you said goodbye. And um >> you have an open-ended contract right now. >> Yes.
>> So, we're going from the same to the same, right? >> Um excuse me one sec. Excuse me one second. Thank you. Um, Marge is not there any longer. Um, do you know whether there's a problem? I just want
to get that taken care of before. >> Okay. And see what's going on with that. Okay. I'm sorry. >> Good catch. >> It was two minutes ago. >> Yeah. I was waiting for Glenn to stop talking. >> I can't read the names up there. I just see I see a G. So, it's Glenn. I'm not
sure who >> I'm not sure who the person on the right is. >> Glenn was talking. >> I don't know who that is either. Um >> sorry Glenn, we're just pausing for a minute because we lost Marge. I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt what you were saying. If you have a thought
to finish if you can just give us one minute to um >> to see what happened. Valerie's checking into it. Okay, >> understood. Somebody's trying to call in. >> That's fair. >> Yeah. >> Marge, if you can hear us, please
unmute. >> It's freezing cold in here. >> It is. >> Running through the rain. >> Yeah. I have a I have a cost saver. Let's raise these. And >> I think it's still raining. Can't tell. >> Yeah, >> sounds like it. >> Make it 78 here.
>> The radar looked like it was going to end anytime soon. >> Hopefully the power stays on. >> I was trying to wait it out to get here and then I was just like, it's not going to happen. >> Yeah, you and me both want to run out the thunder lighting.
And >> he would to get here at 4:30. Then we would have got wet to sit here and wait. She's on, but she's she's not >> There's a phone number up there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's her. It's her. She's on, but
>> yeah, I I don't see her little green hat anymore. Does that mean she's not there? >> She's in by phone now versus computer, but >> Oh, she's a call in now. Yeah, >> it's a call in. That's her phone number. >> But can we hear her? >> No, she's muted. She has to unmute for us to be able to
hear her. And I hope she hears us telling her that. >> Marge, you need to unmute for us to be able to hear you. Can you do that? >> A sign that says, "Help me." >> Unmute. >> Yeah. But
>> Okay. If not, if you could use that chat and tell her to unmute. >> I don't think you'd see chat on a phone. >> No, there's a little chat. >> I know. I don't. >> But she's on. She's via phone. >> It's very hard to use Zoom in a calling format.
>> I see your point. >> Thank you, Co. We all know way too much about Zoom. >> Where we all call all of them Zoom. >> Somebody somebody did good. Well, I guess what I'm hearing is that we want to
continue considering Jeff's until uh or at least two people want to continue hearing uh Jeff's until next week when we hear the other ones. Is that what I'm hearing? Is that the consensus? >> That is my position. Yes. Thank you. >> Well, and but Glenn had a reason for it
why he didn't want to why he recommended against that. >> Well, no. Do you want me to wait for Marge or should I go ahead and >> Well, we're we're hoping Marge can hear us and just not respond. We see that she's here, so we're hoping she can hear us. And if we're not going to vote on
anything, then we we can >> Right. So, >> wait to have her be. Yeah, we can she as long as she can hear the conversation. Go ahead. >> So, there were a couple of reasons that I made the suggestion a week or two ago. First, you know, you had already uh
talked about hiring Jeff, and it sounded like there was simply an issue about terms. It seemed like there was a majority that wanted to bring on board Jeff. You need to negotiate terms. The second reason was an outside firm. They're going to apply. They're going to look at the last couple of minutes, the
last couple of meetings online. They're going to see what's going on with the town. They're going to see that you're interviewing an in-house candidate. they're going to be reluctant to apply when they and takes time and money to put together a proposal um until they know whether that in-house candidate has
been selected or not. As Francine said, the deadline isn't until the 25th. I wouldn't be surprised if there are any firms that are interested that after tonight's meeting, if you select Jeff, they're going to say, "Okay, we're not going to waste any time on it." They pick somebody. If you don't select Jeff, then they're going to put together their
proposal and have it in usually in the deadline because most people that respond to RFPs, whether it's a lawyer or an engineer, they put it in the last day, maybe the day before, but usually the last day. Even though >> that's kind of standard, huh? >> That's pretty standard. Everybody's worried that somebody else is going to see their proposal before, you know, uh
because technically they're public records and you get it to hold competitive issues. So, everybody waits till the last minute or at least the last day to submit their proposals. Um the the >> but there's nothing wrong with considering him with the others on
Monday night. Am I correct or am I wrong? >> You you can you can do that again. You're you're just at this point everybody else every other firm will probably watch this meeting meeting and weigh their chances and say okay do I throw my hat in the ring or not?
>> But you can certainly do that. But >> all right the question Lisa Lisa has a question. I don't have a question. I'd like to propose a motion. I'm sorry. Does anybody else have any questions for Glenn? Glenn, was there anything else that you needed to edify? I'm sorry. I thought
>> Le my only suggestion, my only advice, no matter it's Jeff or a firm manager, whoever the charter officers, that you limit it to one year, maybe two at the most. But if you don't do that, you are seating control that you have as a council. You're giving up your level of
control. You mean even with an outside firm, right? The contract for just one year. >> Sure. Just like >> unlike you who we had an open-ended contract with, >> right? Right. That's that's what you all had. I mean, I wasn't going to say >> that we should have never had an open-ended contract with you. Is that what you're saying?
>> I would not recommend that. If I if I was your attorney at the time, I would have made the same recommendation. >> Well, look, if I was proposing a contract, I'd leave I'd propose an open-ended contract as well. I It's good business, right? >> Very interesting. >> Absolutely. But I mean, it's up to the people sitting up here to go, we're not doing open-ended. We're doing this,
>> right? Well, apparently they didn't do that at that time. >> So, just think about that. No matter who you select, if if the council wants to maintain some level of control over your charter officers, that is the best level of control that you can have is is is the term of the
contract. So that every year, two years maybe, you at least have the opportunity for three of you, a majority, to decide if you want to continue the relationship or not. >> Okay? And the same thing would apply with a contract um with a firm as as
you're suggesting applies to like if we make it a one-year contract with Mr. Curts or a firm either one doesn't matter at the at the end of a year it takes three to renew the contract and four to
terminate. >> Yeah, the contract ends >> regardless of whether the the contract ends. So either the contract ends or three to renew is what I'm saying, Lisa. Three to renew >> or four to terminate at any time during the period during during the course of
it. But three to renew. >> Three to renew otherwise during >> scenario. >> It would take four to terminate during the term. Right. >> And three to renew for either scenario. >> Exactly. >> Okay. No. So every year, >> correct?
>> Every year we do this every year. you would be going through this correct >> for a month and so would >> we go through this on a monthly basis with other stuff. I mean this is I mean this is >> every year we're going to spend four four meetings on this if I and and I'm
going to be bold because I've been quiet here. Um >> and this is the the if I was the town attorney. The first thing that I would tell you
with respect to any issue and you talked about wanting to make meetings more efficient, you all need to start off with a motion to approve. You don't need to.
the maker of the motion doesn't need to believe that they're going to vote in favor of the motion, but you guys sit around and you never get to the point of a vote.
So, respectfully, in the future, um you need to make a motion to approve, you get a second for it, and you vote it up or down. Um because you guys have been here an hour and 20 minutes and I don't know
that you've convinced each other of anything. >> Well, that being said, I I always thought proper rules were there's a motion, a second, then there's discussion. But the way that this is always run, even sitting from out there, it's all right, let's talk about this in
nauseium, and then we're gonna then we're going to vote on it. >> It's actually happened both ways. >> Excuse me. >> Mayor, it appears that the vice mayor's back on. I don't know if you want to try to check in with her. >> Marge, are you there? Can you hear us?
Hello, Marge. >> She's still mute. >> All right. So, Lisa, go ahead and make >> I'd like to make a motion that um we move forward to taking Mr. Curts's
agreement here and creating an official employment contract with a term that we all agree to which I don't know what it will be to be considered at the Monday night meeting along with any other applicants at the
time. >> So you're want to see Jeff's contract at the Monday night meeting? That's what you're saying. I don't think we've any of us have said no to the contract content as it is been negotiated by Mr. McClennon. But I think that it's a
question of it's not in a contract form. It doesn't have a deadline. You know, I think those are the concerns there. I I do agree that Glenn's point was not to hire Mr. Curts as in-house tonight. it was to negotiate the terms, discuss
them, and then discuss another potential applicant at the 28th. He did not want those occurring on the same evening. And that's how I recall it is how he presented it this evening. So, I just make a motion to carry forward this to
Monday night's decision that we've already set a deadline for potential applicants. >> Then Jeff is free to come with any kind of changes or whatever. Sure. >> He wishes, right? >> I mean, he's >> That's all I've ever asked >> an advantage so far. Why not continue to
>> That's all I've asked for from the first day we started talking about this was we need to advertise RFP style. And >> I know you're the one that brought up the due diligence. >> Yeah. So, >> so I I'm with you. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Can we hold for one second? I'm
trying to see if I can get the vice mayor on the line. Oh, >> I'm sorry. Okay. Hi, Vice Mayor. It's Valerie. So, I have you on speaker. Um, there is a motion on the floor from Council Member L. Remy, which was just seconded by Council Member Coleman. Um, I wrote this
down quickly, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it's to take Mr. uh Curts um the resolution form agreement and make it as an actual agreement contract to be considered at the next um meeting on
Monday with the other applicants at that time. And I got a thumbs up from from council member El Remy that I got that correct. Um would you like to cast your vote? >> Thumbs up. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay.
I guess we're doing a roll call, but >> since we got you got the vice mayor, >> we have a I >> am a council member C2. I >> Paul >> I >> no
>> I Okay, passes for >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll keep you on the line. I'll mute you though for now. >> Okay. >> Do you want a motion to adjurnn? Uh I do have one announcement. >> Yes, please. >> Uh we are moving the first budget public
hearing from September 2nd, 2025 to September 3rd, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. Um this was just decided a couple minutes prior to this council meeting. So we will be updating our calendar on the website, but if you have any questions, please uh contact the town clerk's office. And
that is all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, one one clarification. >> Yes, sir. Unless you tell me otherwise, what I will do is I will work with Mr. Kurts to put together an agreement similar to the one he had prepared before, but recognizing the things we
talked about tonight. And a standard agreement for an outside firm. And both of those will have a uh I'll put a one-year term. You can always change that. So, no matter who is being selected, you have that option. And I'd probably put something in there like a
30-day or 60-day before that time to automatically renew or you could renew it, you know, some renewal option so you're not going through um months and months of discussion. Is that acceptable? Do you want me to go down that path or would you rather I not
>> consensus please? >> Yeah, sure. >> Yes, that sounds fine. Marge. Mr. Turivia is going to rewrite another contract. I can we just use the same one and scratch through and not incurr a lot more legal fees since
we've already now written this contract twice. I sure would like to keep those legal fees down. Me too. >> Um so how about how about if we just work with what we have and add a sentence or two to it and and see if we can't keep this under an hour. What do you
think? >> That was my intention was to take our standard. >> Oh, that's great. Okay, that's perfect. >> I just I just heard not to exceed an hour. That's what I heard. Did you you heard that too? >> I will do my best as quickly as we can. >> Not not your best not to exceed an hour
is what was said. >> It's for the record, Glenn. You're stuck. >> It's on the record. Okay. >> Keep it under an hour of legal time. Uh I agree. >> All right. Marge agrees to we have consensus of under an hour. Okay. Uh
then I guess I just need a motion to adjurnn since this was a special meeting and I'll see every Monday night. Second Paul. All in favor? >> Bye Marge. Call you tomorrow. Have a good night. Be safe. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Not