Calling our special commission meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. At this time, we'll have the invocation by uh Pastor Faith. Father God, we need you in this meeting today. We ask that you would be on display here
today. That your wisdom, your counsel, your might, your peace, and your power would be here. We pray for the commissioners, for the mayor, for the conversations that are going to be had today, for the people who are going to speak.
We ask Father that the weight of their words would be made known to them and that Lord you would be honored and you would be glorified in these proceedings today. We ask this in the precious name of Jesus. Amen.
To the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. At this time, we'll
have our discussion for Bay County case number 23-1405CA, Phoenix Construction Services, Inc. versus the city of Linhaven. And we'll turn to our city disc city attorney to begin this discussion. Good morning. Um, I also have on my
speaker phone uh your insurance defense council in this lawsuit. His name is Chad Dunn and he is on my speaker phone if you have any uh specific procedural questions um about the case. Uh but generally this case is um still in its infancy. Uh the city was served in
February. Um the Pennington firm was assigned by your insurer to defend the city um who was um vigorously defending the city. They have filed a motion to dismiss and each time the complaint has been amended they have continued to file
a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Um that is where it is currently uh where it currently stands. Um there is an amended complaint and there is a motion to dismiss. Um that is pending before the court. Uh generally I will say that um
discovery such as depositions, subpoenas, the production of records um doesn't happen until later on in the case. So the fact that there have already there has already been some discovery initiated is a little bit unusual. Um and I wanted to offer that
because I feel like that's part of the reason why there has been so much public interest in this case. There's nothing for the city to do. Um you are not the judge. you are not the jury. Um, in this case, you were a party defendant. Um, collectively as a city,
so there's not there's not much for you to do. I have recommended an email and I want to recommend again that you not discuss the facts of those that case um here in a public forum because that will be handled as the case moves forward if the case moves forward.
You have any specific questions about the procedural status of the case beyond that? Yes, Miss Tender. I do. Uh my question is just in general um what is the risk and liability to this commission
um based on any willful negligence on the part of the city manager? That's not a question I can answer here. Um I don't know that if there is any liability to the city. There's no liability to the commission certainly.
No. Um, okay. You know, whether there's liability to the city or not is something for a judge and jury to work out, right? Were there additional questions for city attorney? Yeah, I got one. So, I mean, obviously,
we take this very seriously because that's why we're here. But my question is there are the in the state that we're in in this case, there are supposed to be more depositions if it's not dismissed, right? Oh, absolutely. There'll be depositions
of all city staffers um who participated in the meetings or have knowledge of the facts of the case. Yes. Right. So this is just the first piece of a larger puzzle essentially. It is. All right. Additional questions.
So in the deposition, you know, there's alleged allegations in there. Mhm. And I'm sure the answer going to be, well, you don't know if it's true or not. However, it could be true. So since
the re since it could be true, why would we not take action to help protect the city? Because if it is true, we need to take action because it's what it's one person's story and there were several people in the room. This is not a straight he said, she said. This is a he said, he
said, he said, he said, he said, she said. Um, so there's several other stories and testimonies yet to be given to paint a more complete picture. I get that, but still it could be true. And since it could be
true, it still puts the city at risk. And why would we not take action to protect the city until that that is determined? Because this this they have initiated a lawsuit for a judge and jury to determine. Um there's nothing for this commission to do. That's the avenue they
have chosen. And so our in order not to prejudice that proceeding, we sit tight and let it work its course. Can I can I say something here? Um I I can't begin to tell you the overwhelming response that I've had um to do what
Commissioner Warick is um suggesting and that is allow Mrs. gainer uh uh separation for 20 days something because they're all terrified this is going to only
snowball with the help and everybody else. Um if if we just let it be and walk away. Can you walk us through the options of what the way forward is because surely there's more than one, right?
So from a lawsuit perspective, there's not much you can there's not much for you to do procedurally. You have your insurance defense who will who was providing your litigation strategy and has already initiated uh the best defense for the city. So in in the in
the legal forum and uh that's already taking place in terms of what you can do. Vicki does work at the pleasure of the commission. Um, so you're you do not have to wait for the lawsuit to take any action against Vicki if that is your pleasure to do so. Whether whatever form
that discipline or action may take, you have that prerogative, you have that now whether or not there is a lawsuit pending. Okay. So, this is what I'm going to say. I think the alleged conduct is relevant and we we required to take some type of action. And I know this way this special
commission meeting is, it says discussion only. So that means we can't make any motions. You can only since it's a special commission meeting, you can only discuss whatever is on the agenda. Is that right? That is generally true. Yes. But can we take action in this one since
it only says discussion only or do we have to have another special commission meeting? I think the five of you are gathered here together. If if there's action you want to take, okay, you are legally able to do so. All right. So
I would like to uh have a discussion and I got four four different things I'd like to look at. Okay. First one being discussion possible approval to terminate the city manager. Number two, discussion possible approval to place a city manager on administrative leave
without pay. Number three, discussion and possible approval to place a city manager on administrative leave with pay. And then lastly, um, some type of discussion and possible action, uh, to direct some type of investigation or something because to me,
you know, there there's a couple individuals named in that deposition. They're either going to corroborate the story or not. I I don't think it's that hard. But what I'm worried about is this gets prolonged and prolonged. We know how the judicial system works. We We don't have time to wait. We have to take
action. So I would like to start with that number one in that order. So first one I'd like to have a discussion possible approval to terminate the city manager lead discussion. Well I I know some of the discussion is going to be well we don't know if it's
true or not. Um and I'm going to be give my honest opinion. Some people might disagree with me. That's okay. Um, if we were having this discussion of possible termination the city manager and it wasn't even the deposition wasn't even here, my answer would be the same. I
my past experience with the city manager, I I don't think she's the best person for the position. I don't um I've I've found things where policy and procedures were not followed. I mean, I hate to bring things up in the past, but
you know, the whole thing that happened with the police chief, we didn't hear about it for a month and a half. There's things like that that I continually find out after the fact, and there's a trust there. And I think trust has been lost. Um, and you know, and I think this is
the other thing that's important for everybody to understand that you don't have to have, and according to contract, she works at the pleasure of the commission. So you don't even have to have a reason to terminate her cuz she's at will, right? So since she's at will,
as long as you're not violating any state and federal laws, you can terminate because you're like, "Hey, look, you're a nice person. You do a fairly good job, but we're looking for somebody that's got a little bit different leadership management style."
It could be something as simple as that. So, I'd like to make a motion to terminate the city employee, city manager effective immediately. And I'll second that. I don't know if you can hear me.
I can hear you. Yes. Okay. Uh, can you hear him? Harold, how do I make If you just put the microphone down to you. All right. Go ahead. Uh, good morning, commission. My name is Chad Dunn. I'm with the Pennington Law
Firm in Tallahassee and as Miss Meyer said, I've been retained to provide by your insurer to provide your legal defense in this case. And before you vote on any motions or have more discussion, I just wanted to piggy back and give some more background to what Mer said at the beginning. Your city is
being sued right now and first, this is a public meeting. So any statements you make, allegations you make are out in the public forum. And I just want to caution you because there's risk in a public forum that you can wave attorney client privilege. You can harm your
litigation strategy and at worst you could potentially compromise the fairness of the legal proceeding including prejudicing prejudicing a future jury pool. And all of those things expose the city to unnecessary risk. So I would just caution you.
You're under a lawsuit right now. There's allegations in the complaint that you taking action today are not going to change, fix, or make the suit go away. So, if you try this case in the court of public opinion without the full information, you bypass the legal
framework and safeguards that are in place and a complaint's just a series of allegations. We're way too early in the process. We have a motion to dismiss pending. There's multiple sides to the story, which you've already alleged to, and you've heard the testimony of one witness. So, I would just I know you
want to know the heart of the matter and get to the truth of what happened here and the truth will come to light. We're just so early in the litigation process that I ask you not to rush to a judgment and make statements at this meeting that can hurt the city in this lawsuit. We
have a motion to dismiss pending that hasn't been ruled on. The allegations in this complaint, the primary ones from 2021, that's several years ago. So my advice is to let the legal process play out a little bit more. See what happens to the motion to dismiss and I implore
you not to jeopardize the city's city's ability to defend itself uh today. Thank you. So could I ask a question? So I know you don't want us to talk about the case, but I'll say what I said earlier. There's allegations in there
that could be true. I'm not saying in a sense they could be true. Why would and and the whole idea to have city attorneys is decrease the legal liability of the city. So why would we not take action to to to decrease or
eliminate legal liability of the city? In my opinion, the action you're proposing is not limiting the liability because the actions in the complaint have already taken place. So if But but that caused me to question the city manager's duties.
That caused me to question the city manager fulfill her duty legally and ethically. To me, that's a serious allegation. And there there's two different things. So if you want to take action against the city manager for some reason, that
sets on its side and it may impact the strategy in this case because it looks like you have believed the allegations. But you firing the city manager doesn't change the allegations in the lawsuit. They've happened in the past. So they happened some several years ago and taking action today isn't going to fix
that. Now again, if you think separately in the park that the city manager is not doing a good job for you and you want to make a change, that's your prerogative. But when you start putting statements on the record about past actions and other reasons uh that you think they're they're not doing a good job, uh you're
impairing the ability to defend your case. Understood. Thank you. I And I have a question if I could ask also. Would it um I personally don't have a problem with leave of absence for
20 days. Um as long as she has no access to it the minute we walk out of this room and she does not have any communication with the staff here. because I'm not throwing anybody under the bus,
but it it's it's not just this. Just like uh um Commissioner Warick said, it's not just this incident. If we wanted to, we know the two people that were in that room. Could ask him right now, did she say it or did she not say
it? They're right here. But for some reason, we are not deposing those two people. and and that needs to be done. So, I mean, I'm asking that attorney there, does he feel that it would be more um
fair or whatever if she had a 20-day absence? I don't have an opinion on putting the city manager on administrative leave. I'll just say any statement you make or action you take against her lavend credence uh to the allegations in the
complaint which are just allegations and so you're in my opinion by acting on this when there's a motion to dismiss pending are doing more harm than good and I would again implore you to just wait and see if that motion is successful or not and then if it's not
then then you got to recalc calibrate and say okay how long do we want to wait do we want to start asking people questions I certainly couldn't do it in this public forum. You asked those two individual city employees questions at this meeting. You wave attorney client privilege. Um and so I would just again
I'm asking you not to do nothing but to wait a little while. So let me ask this. Are we allowed each commissioner and mayor to have one-on-one with the employees and ask them questions and in
private about this? I think that touches some on Amy's expertise. I don't see a sunshine problem there. If you want to sit uh if I can be there too and we have an interview uh with the witnesses, I I
don't think that's impermissible. The thing that I would caution you is you're going to want to take that information and unless we ask everybody questions and you go back to a public forum and you take action and you put those statements out into the public again, your city's under lawsuit. So everything you put out into the public uh is there
for consumption. I mean, we I think we could do it without saying what we discussed and just make a decision. I mean, we are we are under lawsuits all the time. We've got dozens, but this particular one, this particular one,
it just leaves so much out there to happen if we don't take some kind of action. And again, I'm not saying to fire Miss Gainor right out, but I think she needs to um there needs to be distance for sure.
You just second the motion to do that. Well, I Yeah, I did. Okay. Mhm. Um, can I ask a question real quick, sir? Um, um, what's the timeline on someone else
being deposed the next people in line? Um, cuz I know that y'all y'all have ways of saying, you know, to block it. I think the timeline on this deposition was a long took a long time. So, um,
what are we talking about in in a length of time feasibly? ballpark before before other people that were in that room are deposed. This is Chad Dunn again and unfortunately it's very difficult to say. So there have been on the plaintiff
side of Phoenix Construction a couple of attorney changes, a couple of amended complaints. As Miss Meyer said, we filed motions to dismiss to the last two complaints. Uh those have not yet been heard because a plaintiff amends their pleading. So, we have a motion to dismiss that we're trying to set for
hearing. If the plaintiff amends their comp uh pleading again to change the allegations in the case, we have to respond again. That can take uh 20 to 30 days. And then after that, um depending on the outcome, if we move to dismiss again, it would have to be set for
hearing and heard by the judge. And then if not, if we answer the complaint, uh typically the parties would exchange written discovery and then do depositions. But the plaintiff in this case is pressing to set for deposition uh certain city employees and the city
manager. Again, as as defense council, we have a motion to dismiss pending and we're going to oppose that until our motion is heard. Our motion should have been heard before now, but the plaintiff has the right uh to amend their pleadings with with some limits. So, long story short, um it could be a
couple of months, but it's it's hard to give you a specific time frame because we don't um we don't have a set time. I can give you now like a deadline for or a date for our motion to be heard.
So, again, I'll ask the city attorney, can we have each of us have a one-on-one and a private meeting? We we swear I don't know what We won't share it with the public what we talked about so it doesn't affect the case and then we can
come back out here and make a decision. Yes. Okay. So, I'd like to amend my motion as long as you you're fine with it to uh erase my motion and us go in a private one-on-one with Chris Lightfoot, Bobby
Baker, ask any questions you want or even Vicky Gainer if you want. um and then readjourn and then make a decision. And I believe that there were more than just those two employees that were there as well.
I only there were more than those two in the room when this conversation went on. From my understanding, yes. I didn't read that in the deposition. I didn't either. I mean, their their testimony is either going to corroborate the story or it's
not. To me, it's simple. Hold on. City attorney because the deposition is just is not a complete story. There were other staff members in the room. There were other parties in the room and they also have testimony to give which will come out in discovery. But
I I I think by these two, I think you'll I believe with what you see in the deposition and asking them certain questions, I think you can come to a 100% conclusion on what happened. That's my opinion. And we'll see. I
mean, I won't know until I ask the questions. But are there going to be attorneys present? There we need to be. Yes. Okay. cuz I would suggest if we do that we need to if that's the motion then it has to be as close to fair as the other deposition as possible. In fact, I would
take that transcript and ask ask the exact same questions. Correct. Yep. So that way if you're if you're trying to expedite the process then it needs to be the exact same questions that was asked in the other other deposition with attorneys present. Cuz if that's the
case then um I mean it's it is the same thing. My my issue is that like I said earlier, I don't want to say that the deposition was true or false. I don't know full fully yet. I don't I don't I just want to gather as much information as possible. And that's the thing. I
don't want to make a pre-mature decision to fire someone when we know for a fact we have more pieces of the puzzle available, right? Um and so, and we've seen this in the past. I mean, I've done a lot of research on this the past few days. Uh,
and there have been cities all across America where there's been some type of investigation where some of the employees are guilty, but the other employees are not. And so just even locally, we had an example where there's a police chief that there was an
allegation against him. And so he was put on administrative leave with pay and they did a full investigation and it turns out he was innocent and the person that made the allegation told a lie, right, under oath and I believe I don't quote
me on that. Uh but so there isam I don't I just don't want to get into the world where if an allegation is made we fire somebody. I would never want to live in a world where that's the case. However, if we do gather information and
it you know and it proves to be to tell the whole story and it's a fireable offense then sure. But we're we're truly not at that point yet. This is a serious matter. It's a serious thing and we want I just want to encourage you all to make
sure that you have as much information as possible before you make such a drastic change. And I guess my question to the city attorney and to the insurance attorney is having this discussion. How would we be able to still
discuss it publicly without disclosing what we talked about individually? Because we we're not meeting together. So, we will still have to talk publicly about what we heard individually in order to make a decision. Yeah. Following at your one-on- ones, if
you come back together um you you'll have to come together if you're going to make any decisions. Again, I would caution you not to discuss the facts, which makes it really tricky to make a motion. Well, I guess it's not tricky at all. um you'll make if you make a motion
to discipline um you won't be able to state the reasons why if they are related to the allegations made in the lawsuit. It would essentially be without cause at that point. So is that something that you would advise us to do to have individual I mean I know we have the prerogative to
do it but is that something you would advise us to do to have these individual conversations and then come back and make a decision? That's not a legal decision. That's a business decision. If you would like to have those conversations with staff, um yeah, I would recommend that, um I be
there, Chad be there, um uh to observe those conversations happening. Yes. But whether or not you want to have them is completely up to you individually. And if we had them, when could that be done?
It's just a matter of scheduling. I mean, are we talking weeks, a month, or tomorrow? I I don't know that it could happen tomorrow. It could probably happen this week though. So, we can't do it like right after this meeting then.
I am available. I do not know Chad's availability. Um I can't speak for him, but we can certainly set it up to happen as efficiently as possible. The answer can how available are you today?
I can be available this afternoon. Sorry, it's hard for me to hear sometimes uh the discussion, but I can be available this afternoon and then Wednesday and Thursday this week. Uh I'm not available Friday. My preference would be I'd like to be there. I'm the one that has to defend
this lawsuit if it moves forward. So I'd like to see the demeanor of the witnesses. I think doing this over the phone uh would be harmful to that. And so I would ask if we could do it all in one day. Uh line up the people that you want to want to speak to. And I'll just put it out there too. These people might
lead to other people you want to speak to. Um but if we could line it up on one day to where I could be there in person, that would be my preference. Okay. So yeah, I don't think we had a second on the motion, did we?
Is there with the motion? You just mentioned two employees, but there were more than two that were in that room. So, yeah, that's fine. So, you would need to amend your motion to Yeah. So, I'll amend my motion to well, two things here because we don't know
yet, right? So, first part of my motion would be put the city manager administrative leave with pay until we have our interviews oneonone on Wednesday and we make a final final
determination. That would be my motion. And I would second that. Could you say it again, please? I just want to make sure it properly. um put the city manager on administrative leave with pay until Wednesday when we do our
one-on- ons with all the affected parties to make a final determination and then we could probably I don't know right after that have a special commission meeting. I don't know
needs or actually I'll say it like this. I know I'm making this complicated, but the city manager on administrative leave would pay until we do the one-on- ones with all the affected parties and we have a special commission meeting to discuss what action we're going to
take. How's that? Well, we would notice we would have to notice the special commission meeting for 6 hours. So we would need a specific time in which we do that which would then go back to the I guess once we get that scheduled then we could notice
be so if we did it Wednesday afternoon we could have the special commission meeting on Thursday. Do you presently have a budget workshop scheduled for Friday morning? Yes. Would it make sense to have a special meeting immediately before it? I'm just asking since you're already
planning to We could I mean we could. I would prefer that honestly. Okay. Yeah, we could do that. So, Friday, I need to state my motion again. Yeah. Yeah. Start over.
But the city manager an administrative leave. Before you start over though, I just I'm just going to say I want to ask a question. Is can we call an executive meeting? No. No. Not for this purpose. Not for this purpose. Okay. To take him whether to discuss
I know you need a stenographer and all that for Well, there's only limited reasons you can call a shade meeting and to take an employment action is not one of them to discuss litigation strategy or settlement is, but we're too early in this case for that issue to be raped.
Do you think it's important to say since we're in public that if we're doing a an administrative leave with pay, we're basically doing an investigation, right? And if that's the case, then you also need to say that that does not imply guilt or innocence. We need to say that publicly.
Okay. So, I guess if we're doing an investigation, That's why I said W pay. So, if we're doing that on record I didn't mean to cut you off again, but I just wanted to ask the question about the whether we could all be there with an executive meeting and ask the same
questions and get it all done at once. That's a good point. You may not. Okay. Because the questions to be asked are substantive to the lawsuit. So if if we're doing an investigation, would that go beyond just what we're asking as
commission? Would that go also into or to the HR actually doing an investigation on their end as well? I'm not familiar with your internal procedures honestly to do an investigation. I can say if you're doing an investigation, it triggers some exemptions under public records law. Um,
and so some duties to keep things confidential and private until the conclusion of that investigation, which under this current timeline, whatever you discover between now and then related to this facts or conversations with these employees are confidential until the conclusion of your meeting on Friday. I would think we would also need
to allow our HR and whatever attorneys to also do an investigation to pull whatever documentation is needed as opposed to just a testimony of the employees as well to verify what's being said and what has been said cuz right now we're just looking at a deposition a
deposition but I don't know if there's any documentation to support or deny what has actually been said. Oh, she she can do that and be prepared to give that to us on Friday. or Wednesday when we talk with the individuals. That gives her two days.
That'll give them documentation if after we've interviewed. But I'm saying for there to be a third party investigation where she's not involved in Oh. Oh, you're not saying the HR department had you're you're saying it can be the HR department. Third party. But if we're going to go to this
extent, um I'm not saying if we're going to since we're going to since we're initiating an investigation, let's not just do it in part. Let's do a full, if we're going to do a full investigation, allow the total process to go through from an investigation perspective, which
would include an interview with those particular employees as well, but not just an interview with those employees. Um, because again, that goes back to this person said, this person said, as opposed to is there any documentation to corroborate what has actually been said? Have there been emails? Cuz if you all
remember, we received emails about this particular issue in August of 2021. Um and at that time we didn't take any action on this particular issue. What we decided to do was to rebid the um rebid the contracts is what we decided to do
at that particular time. Um I don't know if y'all went back and looked at the minutes from those meetings, but in going back and looked at the minutes from those meetings, it was stated that specifically. Well, you're if as long as you're reciting minutes, that's fine. Yeah. Well, according to I can provide the minutes to you.
Yeah. according to those minutes. Um that's what we made our decision on was in rebating the contracts. So this isn't the first time that we've heard this or the first time we've heard was actually in the deposition itself. Um we've actually seen that in August of
2021. Um and at that time we made a decision to continue to move forward with how we decided to do business um as a city. So, I think it's that type of information um that we're not just saying, okay, hey, this is what this person said in this deposition. This is
what a couple of other people are saying um in their testimony, and we don't have all the facts as Commissioner Peoples has mentioned. if we're going to make, you know, a decision, I think we need to look at all the facts from those particular discussions because there may be other emails that are implying um or
telling as to what the whole story is or other phone calls or conversations or text messages that may give the full story and not just this person said this, this person said this, this person said this. because we are asking individuals to try to remember a conversation from nearly four years ago
and there's been hundreds of conversations since then about other particular issues as well. Um and so that's in part what we're doing is hey what do you remember from 4 years ago at this particular meeting at this particular time. Um and so that can be
you know in part the testimony from that deposition is again asking someone to remember something from four years ago. Is there any other information to support or deny um the allegations or the statements that are being made um so that we can make a a more truthful
decision? I me personally I I don't think it's that complicated the the allegation that's clear. So what is the allegation? I mean, I I understand you're saying it's not that complicated, but we but we just can't. So, I think what what I would like the
mayor to ask or clarify is not the allegation, but the specific set of facts that are being investigated and if if a third party is to undertake the investigation. Alternatively, um I think to also meet the mayor's what I think the mayor may be asking is can staff
provide you all relevant public records related to this particular bid. Is that fair? Yes. Yeah, that's no problem. And from what I'm seeing or what I'm reading, are we asking about a particular bid or are we
asking about change in how we actually did our uh bid processing or what so what what are we what are we asking per se? Talk about what's in the deposition or not. No, you can't. I'll just say it this simply. I'll just
say it very vague. There's there's an allegation in deposition. allegation is very clear. Simple question. Asking simple questions to the party involved, it will either corroborate the
story or it won't corroborate the story. If it corroborates the story, it to me it's an easy decision. If it doesn't corroborate the story, it's a different thing. Right. So, that's the way I'm looking at I really don't think it's that complicated. That's my opinion. I'm not making it complicated. Oh, I know. I'm just saying
you're just trying to do it legally. If we're going to do if we're going to if we're going to do this, then let's look at all the facts. Let's look at the public records. Let's let staff provide us the information that's needed so that we can make a decision and not again
asking someone to go off their memory from four years ago, per se. Or making sure we include everyone because I did read the deposition, but there were other um employees that were there that were not in the that were not named in the deposition as well. Mhm.
So I think not just including in addition to including all parties that we include all the information during our sessions as well allowing staff to provide us anything that's pertaining to that of what we're trying to investigate. So, are we trying to track down and I guess my question is are we
trying to track down an allegation um or are we trying to actually track down was it legal for us to do what we did as the commission um whenever we made these changes because again we if there is an allegation we cooperated it because we made the decision to move forward with those particular changes that were
suggested to us. So, it's not like there's things in there that I didn't stop. There's things in there I didn't know. Just for the record, I was not on the board during that time. So it was not we you're you're here now with us. So welcome aboard. So what it sounds like to me is that we
will make these two employees available to meet with each commissioner and I think whatever other additional employees that were there you're essentially doing at least five invest five individual investigations. So we'll make these two employees available to you for one-on ones on
Wednesday or Thursday. um staff will provide to you the documents we think are relevant to those conversations. Um and then we'll meet again on Friday is what I understand. Do I understand that correctly? I would like to include whatever
employees are actually in the meeting, not just those two that are named deposition, but whoever was there. Okay. And um for the attorney also, if I can just make this statement, for as long as
uh Mrs. Gainor is on leave, we can request from the League of Cities, an interim city manager. They will come and step in for as long as they have to be here. We already have an assistant city manager. Why would we need to ask for That will not fly.
Wait a minute. That will not fly. So, we have an assistant city manager, but we're going to ask for the league to send us an interim city manager. Yes, we do. We want to we want somebody that knows nothing in regards to the employees and and or anything about
them, how they're going to effectively lead our city if they don't know anything about what's going on with our city. They're experienced and they would probably give the leaders of the departments the authority to to do their job. Miss Tener, they do have the
ability to do their job. That is one thing I do know. Thank you. So Amy, if you could help us see what are what what motion are we making right now or what motion is actually you need me to repeat it?
Yeah. So, a motion to leave with pay until employee interviews are concluded and a meeting by the commission has been had to take some action. Yes, that would be the motion I would like to make.
All right, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any further discussion from the commission on that? Just want to reiterate for the record, we're not admitting innocence or guilt until after this
investigation is done. We all agree with that. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. Yes. All right. This time we'll receive public comment here. We'll go rowby row. Uh first row. All right. Mr. Walker. Mayor, I would request that the public
comments be related specifically to the motion on the table and not to any of the facts that may be justifying the reason for that investigation. Right. So, please, if you're heard the city attorney, please limit your comments to that. If you would restate what you mentioned, city attorney in
regards to public comment, you if you'd limit your comments comments to the proposition procedurally, whether the commission should take this action or not and not as to the any allegations against the city manager specifically. I will I will try as best I can. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Um I don't have to follow what the city attorney says. However, this lawsuit is against the city. That means you guys,
you are our elected people. First of all, I want to thank you for taking it and allowing the public to get involved in this. You are elected to make a decision. This is a discussion. You've elevated it now out of discussion
to emotion and action. Good. However, what you've decided here is you've put the staff above the citizens. They have no rights at all. You're
considering their decision to be your decision, which should be your decision for us. I don't think this is correct the way you're doing this actually. Yes, you should have another
commission meeting and that's good. And then the public can get involved in this and you represent us. You are representing us and this lawsuit is against us
and you're going to wait for the staff who are some of them not even citizens of Lyn Haven make a decision for you. I think you're taking this the wrong way. Mayor, thank you for allowing us to
speak and you're going to get it. I will say that the statutory requirement for public comment requires that public comment be made available sometime in in some portion of the process. It doesn't require public comment at every step of the process um as you know from your pre meetings uh where the public is allowed
to re to observe here because this motion pending does contemplate another meeting um on Friday morning. It would be legally um proper to take public comment at that time. Um, just to echo
what Mr. Walker just suggested. All right. You can't take it now, but you could also take it then. Does a commissioner want to take public comment now at a later meeting? No, I would take it now. That way residents understand we're trying to First row. Anyone else on the first row?
Second row. Third row. backwaller. Um, I want to point out a few things. Number one, this lawsuit isn't just against the city. Vicky Gainer is also a named Pliff. Let's just
make that clear. Number two, I I do want to reiterate a statement that you made that you knew of these allegations in 2021 and didn't tell anybody. The entire commission received an email about this in 2021, not just me. the entire commission did.
Well, just want to publicly get that out there. And and I want to make this statement as well. At any point in time, you can fire a city manager with or without cause. You can simply say that her bookkeeping isn't good enough. You can simply say that she doesn't uphold
the moral standards according to chapter 2 of the charter. You can also say that we're standing in a building without an occupancy permit, and that puts us all at liability. And that liability is larger than keeping her on. You can do it for any reasons. We didn't have a
permitted fire sprinkler system and and that is her responsibility to ensure that occurs. You don't need just this reason. There are hundreds. You don't need just this one. And the city is demanding that she be fired.
Think about that for the rest of you because they could come for you, too. Thank you. All right. Anyone else on that row? All right. The next row. Anyone from that row? Uh,
we're we're not on this side yet. We're still on this side. Bishop 8123 South Lagoon Drive. Um, I'm voicing support for this motion. Um, again, my sympathy to the commission is a very complicated issue. It's a very u complex matter to deal with in part
because, you know, from what I can tell from the legal opinion here, which I I think is, you know, they're trying to do their best. You're kind of serving two masters at this point. One is the question of the lawsuit itself, in which case the strategy is to defeat it as as much as you can recognize that. So, all the legal guidance you're going to get
is regarding this thing. Secondary question though is what is best holistically for the city. And so I think this is some of the the struggles. I know that some of you are dealing with some of the frustrations you're you're getting right now with the direction of the legal advice. The legal advice itself is sound, but that's a question
to this specific lawsuit, whereas this is a much more factf finding situation to try to deal with the holistic nature of city Holland's leadership. So I just want to recognize I I get the frustration, complexity of this. I think this is a good step to take. Um and the community obviously is very concerned about this. I just want to voice my
support of that and to to thank you all for your public service. All right. Anyone else from that row Mary Bird Cooper I'm at 812 Alabama Avenue. I came back to Linhaven. I was born and raised here.
I'm embarrassed. I'm ashamed. We've got to get it together. We're grown adults. whatever I can do to help push it in the right direction. It's gone on too long and it's cost way too much money. I I don't even know a resolution because I
haven't been here long enough. Something has to be changed immediately. Not in two months, four more years. Bird, I know how many lawsuits are out there. And I can sit and watch and count
the sunshine violations on TV. It's just it's disgusting. Guys, we're smarter than that. Let's get to that point. Anyone else from that row? All right, the next row behind them.
Good morning, George Hines, 603 Rhode Island Avenue. I have been before this commission many times to let you know that you don't work for a group of people. You work for the whole city. The city inclusive of everyone, not just select a few. I was at a forum about
three months ago and they asked a question at a Republican forum that if you got reelected in the position, would you fire Vicky Gain? And the answer was yes from some people. It was not necessary for for another person. So people have been trying to find Bick Gain for a while. The elephant in the
room is because she's black, not because what she does. Everybody's laughing about it. The facts are the facts. If we if we would hold our response or we have to end public commentary. I have been in Bay County for over 71 years. Actually 72. So I know this
county inside and out. Things haven't changed as much as they need to change. We still have the same people trying to do the same things. If you go along with this and you get f let her go for a week, two weeks, nine months, whatever, and you find out she's not guilty, then what are you going to
say? Arrest my case. Thank you. Right. Anyone else on that row? Morning, mayor, commissioner. Tony Boster, 159 North Kimberell Avenue. By raise by show of hands, how many of you
guys are lawyers other than the city attorney? Point made two meetings ago. If you go back and get the u transcript and if you go back and get the video that's recorded two months ago, the two
commissioners, i.e. Mr. Warick and Miss uh Tinder, they were all about not doing business with Panhandle Engineering and uh Chris Forhan. Then all of a sudden through a FOIA it's discovered that Mr. Ward sends a email to the city attorney
saying that he supports Mr. uh uh forehand in this lawsuit. Now uh according to chapter 286 Florida statutes, more specifically 286.011, 011. You guys are going to violate the sunshine law with this meeting you're
supposedly going to have because you're you're interfering in what's going on now. And and you're wanting to depose these people simply violates that that that Florida statue of the sunshine law because now you want to depose them, but you don't want to tell them tell the public what you're doing or what
questions you asked or what the answers were. Uh then you look at Mr. beforehand on June the 25th, he was arrested for a DUI. That was the day that was the day before his uh original deposition. Um they
rescheduled it for July the 2nd. And on July 8th, James Finch totally dismissed him from the lawsuit. Now, I didn't I didn't graduate from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, but I got the sneaky suspicion that two commissioners out of the the
four that sits there have a an agenda backed by some people from the community. Now, that's just absolutely wrong. Mr. Hines just said that it was about race. I think it's more than just about
race. It's about race and gender. And then let since you want to throw out suppositions and allegations, well, there's allegation out there which is backed up by some uh uh photographic evidence that Miss Tinder, you are actually
soliciting and receiving signatures on this recall petition for Mayor Nelson at your place of business. Now, how does that square? And I don't need an answer right now, but you I'm just letting you know since y'all
throwing out things. You and Mr. Ward. So if you gonna throw it out there, throw it all out there. Don't just put out what's good for you. You want to depose two people and get their answers, but there was at least four other people or three or four other people in the room. I didn't hear you
jump on that. Why? Cuz could it be that you have a personalized agenda? Because Miss Tender, you did in fact say, and I do believe it's on record, that if you got back in here, you were going to get rid of Miss Gana. What is your problem with Miss Gainer other than she's a
strong black woman? Thank you. Um, anyone else on that row? Anyone else on that row? Uh, the next row. All right, next row. Anyone else on Anyone else on this side?
Any other comments from this side? Yep. Any any other comments from this side? No one else from this side. All right. Coming to this side. So when I read this deposition on Friday and I read it twice,
I came downstairs and I went into an office where the two people that are mentioned in this deposition were sitting. and their spontaneous remarks to me
prompted me after going back and looking through Florida state statute to throw a phone call to FDLE. At this point, when I just stepped out, this is under review.
I can't sit here and continue to hear and you guys not to be aware of that. Key word attorney is review. So full transparency, I have talked to both of these witnesses. It was
unsolicited their answer. It wasn't an interrogation. It was three men in a room talking. So I'm going to be fully transparent about that. It's under review.
All right. Anyone else from this side or anyone else from this row? Uh, next row and then this row. Yes, Mr. Finch. James Finch, 1410 East Second Street, Ped City Haven. Excuse.
You know, I'm I took on the uh committee to chair the recall committee. And I did that, mayor, because you have for the last year and a half taken the position of Vicky Gainor and Ricky Ramy above all
the citizens here. You've cut them off. You've done everything. And today, I understand there was going to be an attorney here. And I said, "Well, they going to do all this." Every time you file a lawsuit, whoever it is, the other side files a lawsuit, a
files a amendment to throw the suit out. That's called pingpong in a lawyer deal. You get the money rolling. You get the time going. That's all that is. Anytime somebody sues, the other side says it ain't no good. Throw it out. But this
bathroom over here was $240ome,000. That's where the uh corruption started right there. Right out of Vickiy's window in April. $240 something,000 for that bathroom. I
built the one in Porter Park. Porter Park. It was $58,000. That was $243. So I said, "Man, this bathroom here's all it's got is a fan in it. Nothing." And I said, I took out of my pocket and
I had air condition put in it, tile put in it, and the whole stuff. But you've taken a position of these two right here, Ricky Ramy and Vicky Gainor. The deposition, it took me a year and a half to get those depositions. That one
deposition that's caused all this problem. He swore under oath. And then we asked for Vicky Gainers, the other two PE people that Chris Forhan mentioned in the deposition. We asked for the deposition. Their attorneys has
not even called us back as I know of last Friday. And they do that. It's it's all about the time. There was a motion here in a second and it went away. You've accomplished what you wanted to do. But I'm telling you, it's coming to fact that this has got to be
straightened out. a year and a half. These people don't go away. It's been week after week. They come up here and y'all do nothing. Peoples does nothing. My friend Pat does nothing. Judy Vandy Griff didn't do nothing. Y'all did what you want to do,
but it's time to be straightened out. And the whole deal is if anything is that deposition is true, she she should be kicked out of the building. And so you got to I'm going to have my lawyer try and have it make public today.
Hopefully it does and I want everybody to read it. But any anybody wants a petition to get you out of here, we got plenty of them. Thank you. Anyone else on that row? All right, the next row.
Jerry Parker red place. Guys, this has been going on for ever. The corruption. The corruption. Pat Hebles
Warick and the other one she's gone. They were all given factual information from the federal case, not our opinion.
Factual. Did any one of you do anything about it? No. Or I'll give you this. you came around. Thank you. Did any other ones
come to the commission meeting and say, "Hey, I was given this information." No, you ignored it. You've ignored it for years. I have come to this podium for years. I've lived here since 2002. I
never came to a commission meeting prior to the hurricane. But when I saw the corruption, I'm like, "Oh, no. Uh-uh. This is not going." And I want to talk about race. This has nothing to do with race. It has to do
with integrity. It has to do with someone doing the right thing. And that's not happening with this commission. And y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for not standing up and not calling points of order when it
needs to be called. these other people that that beat us down and you mayor trying to call us racist. This has nothing to do with your race. Nothing. Zero zilch.
And I will continue to come to this podium and petition my government for what it needs to be petitioned for. Accountability needs to be made with this commission. There's been dereliction of duty all
around for years. Y'all knew the corruption. Y'all knew what happened. Y'all saw it. People were in court. Jamie, you were in court. You saw the testimonies. Saw the lies.
And Miss Gainner, you still haven't apologized to me for what you said to the FBI about me. You still to this day have not apologized to me. Y'all need to get your crap together
cuz this city is in fire right now. Thank you. Anyone else from that row? and the next row. Morning, Ryan Gray. Um, as a source of
this deposition going public, I feel obligated to talk at this moment. Um, there's some information out there saying that the city um, inspired or drove me to uh, release this out. That is untrue. Um, despite what
others may believe, this was my own choice to release this out when it was sent to me. I didn't consult with anybody. I just chose to send it out. Why? Because I believe proper governance is the most important thing that needs to happen in this community. And I believe right now that's what's happening. Despite all of the other
commentary, what's on the table right now is our commission, our elected representatives, our voice doing what they can to protect the city's and the city is not the entity that exists. The city is all the people behind me.
Protect the city's best interest right now. And by doing um administrative leave, you are taking an appropriate action to protect the city from any future potential issues that may or may not arise. And when it's all done and
settled, you'll have all the information you hopefully need to decide what the correct course of action is. But to do nothing right now is to be complicit in ignorance, willful ignorance. And that is not proper governance. You were all elected to do a job. It's a tough job
right now. It's not one I envy. Um, but you it's you have your job to do and proper governance is what we're asking of you. So, if that's administrative leave while you look into all of this, that's what's appropriate. Um, in addition to that, um, when this lawsuit
first came out 3 years ago, I read through the entire complaint. I'm a procurement professional. I do government contracts. I've done it for 15 years. It made me sick to my stomach to read what Mr. Finch was accusing the city and the city manager of doing. The
fact that there was a 2021 um commission action to rebid, uh you should all be asking for a third party audit on every procurement action from whenever Miss Gainor was put in position of city manager to now because it causes me as a
procurement professional to question all of those actions. For example, there is a lawn care contract that was done, I think maybe two or three years ago, um where the low bidder was disqualified because they didn't put their um bid
costs in appropriate format. That correct? Who knows? Should probably look into that. But a third party procurement audit of all the city procurements is what I would do as a procurement professional if I were in your shoes. Thank you.
Anyone else from that row? Bernie Thompson. Um, Mr. Ryan Scrag said he was the source of putting the deposition of Chris Forhan Panhandle Engineering on the internet. And I reported that you guys leaked it. The defendants leaked it. And I said
specifically the commissioner work did gave it to Mr. Gray. Nothing illegal about it, but I want it on the record and if I'm wrong, I'm happy to correct it. Number two, what you all are doing is
putting your city employees in incredible jeopardy. After you suggested individual investigations with city employees who work under city manager Vicky Gainor, your police chief comes up
here after that during this meeting and says the FDLE is now investigating this criminal matter. And just before he did that, he walked out there and made a phone call. I'm
making a spoken public record request for any and all text messages and phone calls from your police chief who has come and sat here and communicated with Mr. Peebles and some of you
just before he comes up here and pulls out the hammer and says, "I just want everybody to be aware that there's now a criminal investigation." This is the same police chief who has made false arrests
from because he was bros with your last city manager, Michael White. You all are putting these employees in serious danger if you
don't dep you. They should not leave this room. They are not safe. The person deposed Chris Forehand. You do have more information. You have FBI 302s. Those are the memorialized investigations of the FBI. And you
probably know what they say. Mr. Warick, Commissioner Warick was in the courtroom in the federal courtroom in Judge Walker's courtroom and watched city manager Vicky Gayner be deposed um rather uh testify in front of Judge Walker. It was unbelievable. You have
whatever investigation notes were remaining from Sheriff Ford that were not destroyed and you've got information there. And the subject in question, Chris Forehand, has been given federal immunity
in that in that federal case. Why do you think the feds give immunity? Immunity for what? For crimes committed. And y'all are sitting here like this is normal. I'm worried about my drive home and I'm worried about these city employees. Thank you. Thank you.
Additional public commentary from that row. Any from the next row? Yes, sir. Mitch Oakley, 1208 Massachusetts Avenue. A couple of things in general. Number one, you've just witnessed the
weaponization of the legal system. If you want to bring a good company down, bring two attorneys and the insurance agent into the meeting. Everything stops. Which tells me this was being led by the hour from somewhere. That's another matter. I thank the commission
in its entirety for finding its collective resolve. That's what we want you to do. I mean, it it is planned. I agree with something you said. It looks pretty clear to me. You know, I'm Chichin Chong here. You remember Chichin Chong? It looks like dog crap. Smells like dog crap. Might be dog crap. But
there's enough reason there to look. But the real pain is inflicted while we're fighting over this while Nero is playing. I had a a forced retired Navy diver last week who's got a nearly dying wife and a sick child. You know what he spent three days doing? worrying about
what I'm going to do with my trailer because somebody stuck a pole in the water meter lid and says I got to move it or they're going to give me $250 a day fine. This after we're told there'll be no enforcement, we put drones in the sky and code enforcement out in the truck threatening financial retribution.
You better take care of business. Your clientele is getting real tired of it. Anyone else from that row? Ana Pledger, 1010 Arkansas Avenue. My husband is the former code enforcement officer that Vicki and Ricky decided
that they were going to arrest and prosecute. Um, he wasn't given any notice. He was arrested on the spot. What about that? Y'all aren't going to do anything about that. He wasn't given due process. He didn't do anything
wrong. Swallow that pill. Anyone else from that row? Uh the next row. Anyone from the next row? Um has there is there anyone that has not given public commentary that allowed
to give public commentary at this time? Yes. Good morning. 2411 Kimberly Drive, Lin Haven. Uh, since I've been coming to these meetings from the very first day that um, Miss
Gainor was uh, hired for this position. I've watched the community uh a specific group of people bear false witness uh seek retaliation and uh just listening to all the
commentary here this morning it's almost like uh the current tenure in the in this in the country any DEI any black woman that's uh and some lady who's back there said it's not about race but I I'm here to remind you
today that it is about race. Um, I've watched the come to the meetings and have people say, "Well, uh, you know, there were people watching Miss Gainner's house. Just make sure she didn't use any public employees." And it seems that instead of, uh,
concentrating on our city, we have spent months concentrating on the city manager and the mayor. At first, I think it was just uh Miss Gainor, but then I think it was an effort to get rid of the mayor in order to get rid of Miss Gainor. I think
it's a shame all the good Christian people that were in church singing kumbaya ya yesterday are here this morning willing to uh persecute somebody for retaliation. I think it's a shame. Thank you and have a good morning and
God bless you. Any additional comment from the public that has not already made comment. Um, anything from you, city attorney? Nothing further. Um, Miss Gainor, how many of you can do a job with your
hands tied behind your back? That's what I've had to do for six and a half years. With one hand tied behind my back, do my job. During my eight years, I have served as city manager and seven of those years
has been as city manager. During my tenure, I have had to overcome and sit quietly like I'm doing here today. Blatant lies, attacks,
scare tactics, name calling, people watching my house, racism, bullying from commissioner, character assassination, in public and on social media.
There are people calling for a public hanging. You tell me that's not racism. Public hanging in this day and age. I have commissioners
who have sent people, their friends to these commission meetings for public lynchings. They have been nothing but trying to stop this city from going forward. I have worked tirelessly for this comm
this city and many of these people that come here, they're doing it all in the name of integrity and transparency. Make no mistake about it. These folks have never wanted me here. That we have
22,000 residents. We have maybe 75 that are constantly attacking, including some commissioners, constantly bullying
to ensure that I don't do this job well. We have commissioners that say, "I'm not qualified. I have a master's degree from Florida State University." Just so you know, I have done this job well.
I have not taken one dime of the city of Linhaven's money. Only what you have paid me. Not one dime have I taken of this city's money. This city has lost millions
because of certain people who have big rig this these these bigs. These folks sit here today and act like they've not done one thing wrong. This
city has prospered. When I came to the city of Linhaven, and I don't think many of you know this, this city only had $6.8 million in it. It was well on its way from going downhill. $6.8 million dollars to run a
city. Today, this city has $19 million. $19 million. Enough to start a reserve fund if we want to. The city has been rebuilt. It was totally destroyed. It's
been rebuilt. We paid down the debt from 66 million to 31 million. I have put my needs, the city needs before myself and my family. You know, every single
commission meeting, Miss Parker gets up and said, "You owe me an apology." But let me just tell you what was happening during that time. I was constantly badgered by Miss Parker and several others.
The FBI asked me why did I think that to be so. And I said to them, they are trying to make me look bad and make Margot look good. And I feel like I feel like they are working for her. Those
that's what I said. And that particular information is out there to the public, but she continues to say that I lied. So, Miss Parker, if that hurt your feelings, I am absolutely
sorry before everybody here, but I know it was the truth. So, please accept my apology. I just want people to know this is what we deal with on a daily basis every
single day. It's been like this. And now you are now taking the deposition of someone who all of you, many of you that sit up on this podium, have called that
person a liar. You've called for me to fire him. You've called for the commission to fire him, but now he's been a liar for six years, but now he's telling the truth. How hypocritical is
that? Absolutely hypocritical. Let's start with the public comment. Thank you. While I am very distraught and my family's distraught and my family has been destroyed and they've had to endure
all of these things, I still love this city and I will work hard for this city. Even why you discredit me, my character, my name, I cannot say I'm I'm I'm I'm
surprised. I'm not surprised. I will come to work every day and work for the citizens in this city. After all, one thing I do know that the Bible says is so true.
The truth will set you free. And all of those who have turned their back and put out the blatant lies and done all the things, God will take care of you in his own due time. I love the city of Lin
Haven. I love every single resident here. That won't ever stop. But we have got to stop trying to get rid of people who are trying to do a job for the city of L Haven and work for
you. My goal is to do just that. Again, please start with the public comments. Thank you. All right. There's a motion on the floor uh by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Tender. City Manager, we call the vote.
Commissioner Warick, yes. Commissioner Tender, yes. Commissioner Parnau, yes. Commissioner Peeles, yes. Mayor Nelson, no. Motion passes. Beating a jar.