Everyone, thank you for joining us for this uh special commission meeting this afternoon. Uh special purpose, hopefully a short and relatively painless meeting, but thank you for all joining and spending part of your Friday afternoon with us. We're going to kick off with a call to order.
We're going to have a invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance and pass. Chaplain Bruce, come on up, sir. [clears throat] >> Oh, flags are over here today. [laughter]
>> Sorry. Let us all bow our heads. Heavenly Father, we thank you for another beautiful day. Thank you for bringing us together. Thank you for the grant us the clarity to make sound decisions the humility to listen to each other make
grant and make us one as a community. It is in your name father we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, chaplain. All right. So, for the main topic of today, over the course of this request for proposal process to solicit a new city attorney,
we ended up hitting several unanticipated potholes that collectively made our current procurement process problematic. One of the three law firms withdrew from consideration. A second law firm identified a major pricing error after the fact, and the third law firm
recently ran into some very significant federal court related issues that negatively impacted its competitiveness. While everyone may not like the final decision the commission ultimately arrives at when selecting an individual RFP, the underlying review process
should always be consistent, transparent, and fair. Our city staff and commission both pursued this particular RFP in good faith. But after talking extensively with the city manager, two separate attorneys, including our guest supporting attorney
today, uh and two longtime contracting subject matter experts, including our very own Mr. Ryan Scray. Uh I now see that this RFP process is a bit too problematic for us to use. At this point, I believe it's in the city's best
interest to formally rescend our new city attorney law firm selection vote and officially close out RFP25.26-17 without a formal award. Once the RFP is officially closed out with no selection made, we will have two options moving
forward. A, we can go through the entire monthsl long city uh procurement process and roll the dice a second time to see what we get, which I do not recommend. Or B, this commission can use its authority vested in it by article 3,
section 27 of the city charter to directly appoint its own city attorney with a simple majority vote. It is important to note that the Florida law exempts municipal legal services from competitive solicitation requirements and option B also complies with our
city's current procurement policy. Before we go any further, I would like to ask Miss Kayla Platt Ra of the Rumbberg and Kirk Law Firm out of Tallahassee, who is assisting us today as an independent third party attorney.
Call her the acting city attorney today for to share her thoughts. Ma'am, >> good afternoon, mayor. Good afternoon, commissioners in the audience. My name is Kayla Patra. I'm with the law firm Runburgger Kirk and we've represented the city in various litigation matters, employment matters, property matters.
I've reviewed this and I'm gonna go over a few things. If you guys have questions, I'm here for you all. >> Ma'am, did you turn your microphone on? >> Oh, it is on. Can you hear me better now? Okay. Sorry. >> Let me just go over some of the law, some of the procedural things, and then
if you have questions, I'm here. Section 120.57F says no submissions after a bid is open that emids amends or supplements shall be considered. So essentially what happened here is we had a couple of different things that were submitted
after the bids were open and under the law under the section those should not have been considered. They appear to be material changes. It wasn't just a small little moving of a decimal. It was significantly changing the amount in this case.
There's several options that we can do now. How do we cure this? How do we fix this? We want to make sure we're acting in good faith. We want to make sure we're not acting unlawfully, arbitrary, capricciously, right? So, what I recommend is one of three things. We make a motion to resend the vote that
was made last week to accept that law firm. And then where do we go from there? We can either make a motion to look at the next most qualified bidder. We can make a motion to do another RFP or we can make a motion to do what the
mayor has proposed here and using the authority of the city commission vote to determine whatever law firm you want. And I you do have that authority. Specifically, section 2.87.057 subsection 3E4. Yeah. [laughter] Florida
statutes um provides several things that are exempt from going out to bid. And one of those is us hiring legal services, hiring attorneys. And and it makes sense if you think about it from a common sense standpoint. There's certain things like medical legal services and the statute identifies those. You don't
have to go out to bid for and that might be an option that you want to consider today. Does anyone and your RFP also provides for that. If you look in the language of the RFP for these legal services, it you as the commission reserve the right to reject all parts or
discontinue the RFP altogether with a reason or without a reason before a contract has been entered. Good afternoon, Commissioner. So, we are in a good position here. Um, I'm going to open up the table. Does any commissioner have a follow-up question,
comment, concern? So, the main thing here uh that we need to look at is it looks like no matter what the based on the two options that the mayor gave, it's going to have to be rescended, right? >> I would recommend that we resend it.
Yes. And the city commission has discretion, a lot of discretion in who they choose. We want to make sure it's in good faith. We want to make sure that it's not >> um any sort of question about that process. So the end result may be the same but yes
>> was the biggest issue uh the fact that it was the flat rate after the flat rate was a offered after the original >> I see I see two issues here one was yes what you said that's an additional term that was changing that kind of affects
the competitiveness nature of the process it gives possibly an unfair advantage that is one of them and the other one was this what I think people are calling clerical error because that was a material change from $750 to $7,500.
That's a material change that also kind of hinders the competitive idea, the fair idea of the bidding process. >> Okay, >> Miss Judy, Mr. War got any questions for Miss Kayla?
So, [clears throat] mayor, you said we uh can't remember your exact words, but we hit some bumps in the road in the procurement policy. >> This is our fault. >> Okay. I I stated this at the last meeting that this was not a minor im uh
minor irregularity. And it wasn't just me. It was our procurement manager. He sent an email to Mr. Lightfoot stating that [clears throat] it was not a clerical error. Did you all get that email?
>> Yeah, but I was more concerned about like we discussed in that meeting to me the issue was not that because it didn't seem it wasn't that like anyone can mess up a zero and there's an argument for that. The issue today for me is that the
flat rate coming after the questions were asked. I wish someone would have in that meeting that would have been the focus on why that was an issue. Not so much the 750 to 7 7,500 because in my mind that's a pretty easy mistake to make. I mean missing a zero. But the
flat rate issue is the one that I wanted to focus on because I wish in that meeting someone would have stepped up and either staff or or attorney and be like, "Hey, this is also something we need to stop considering,
>> right? A secondary issue." So Jamie, I will totally give you props here for saying you were right. And I missed I was so focused on arguing with you over the or the apple price versus the orange, right? The orange being the fixed rate price. You and I were
sparring and arguing professionally but arguing or disagreeing on uh the Apple price which was the 7,500 and the hourly rate. Right? We were so focused on that I didn't even understand there was an issue with the orange until after the fact. I had a long in-depth
conversation with Mr. I also spoke to two attorneys and the city manager and they said, "Well, the orange option has this issue too." That was never discussed. I never even realized that was an issue. Now I do. Now I understand what you're saying. But you and I were locked horns on the apple. We never
discussed the orange. >> Right. And that's why I didn't even look at the orange because it's not even a viable option. >> It wasn't. You're correct. It was. And I am not a contract procurement specialist. Never even stayed out of Holiday and Express.
So I can't claim that credit either. But what I can say is I've talked to some folks, two procurement folks in the last 48 hours that are very smart on this and have done this for decades and they explained to me, well, you might be able to argue a comma or a small change to
the original submission. >> Mhm. >> But when you add a second option like that, that's very problematic. So, we have two options going forward. We still have the clear option. We had three law firms. Uh, two of them were not local.
The two non-local law firms, one pulled out on their own, the other one is under significant federal legal issues. Uh, that makes them much less competitive than they would have otherwise. So, we're really down to the local firm that gave us the best price offer even though
it was late. Um, so what we can do is we literally formally close out this [clears throat] RFP with no selection and then we can directly appoint the same firm that we selected Thursday or Tuesday night done shipment for the same
275 price as a direct appointment with the only local firm going and we can proceed forward. It cleans up the material. Mr. Scra and I talked about this extensively. He said yes, this will clear it up. It makes your process clean. Y'all have the legal authority to
do so with the city charter, with the state statutes, as well as their own our own city procurement policy. So, I see this being a recordskeeping administrative making it right versus proceeding on trying to ride down
the road on a flat tire. We stop, we change the tire, and we press forward. >> All right. So, first step is we need to resend our vote from Tuesday, right? So I make a motion to resend the vote we did on Tuesday. Then we can go to the next
step. >> So your motion is recognized. And just for the the um reference of the other three commissioners, what this would be if we move forward with this, we we would first need to vote on Commissioner
Warick's motion, right, to resend RFP25.26-17 without a formal award. Then we can immediately make a second motion to legally and directly appoint Dunlap Shipman as our new city attorney
law firm at a rate of 275. >> We'll discuss that afterwards. Let's do the motion first. >> Well, no, no, it's it's important to understand if we go down this route. Now, the other option is we can go through the the prolonged monthslong procurement policy, right? Uh we can go
through that whole thing again. But as the attorney just told us, as Mr. Scra explained to me, we never even needed to do that. We didn't have to do it the first time. We don't have to do it now. We have a local attorney option that four of the five of us selected Tuesday
night. We can still proceed forward with them very cleanly, very legally, sufficiently, and move forward. If you commissioners want to do the monthsl long process again, we can, but we do not have to.
>> I just want to make a clarification. Commissioner work, was your motion to resend your vote from last resend the vote from last week? That's what I would recommend first, that motion be made. >> That's that's my motion. So, this would basically be a Florida two-step, I
guess. Yeah, it could potentially be a three-steper depending on how y'all do this, but I would recommend doing a motion to resend the vote from last week. If there's a second and that gets passed, then you can have discussions on whether
you want to end the bid process and how you want to proceed from there. >> But there's a direct sequence of events here, right? But the first thing would be to resend our vote from Tuesday night and close out this particular RFP
without a formal award. Then all the options are on the table and we can still press forward. That clear enough questions all right so we have a motion from
Commissioner Wart to resend RFP25.26-17 26-17 without a formal award. May I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Um,
this really isn't something to formally discuss, per se. >> You have to open it up to You've got a >> motion in a second. You got to open it to the public. >> Well, no. I'm saying is there any other discussion amongst the commission before we move forward
with this? >> I mayor I would like to hear from the procurement we have here >> before I open it up to the floor I wanted to make sure there's no question among the dismission before we open up [clears throat] the
floor. Uh no just just want to reiterate and confirm that this is this vote is simply just to rescend the vote and that's it. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> This is this first step has to happen before anything else can happen. >> Right. >> But we we have two options after that.
>> So no questions. I'm going to open it up to the floor. Any questions or comments from the uh the audience? >> Mayor, before we do that, would you like Mr. Bracie to come up for any questions? Thank you. >> I would like to hear from him. >> Sure.
>> And how he feels about it. >> Is Mr. Bracie here? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, you're behind Kiki. I couldn't see you. I'm sorry. Come on up. >> Happy Friday. How y'all doing? >> Uh, no. I don't really have anything to add. Um, as I stated in the email to
city manager lifeoot on the 7th, uh, I my two recommendations are to either cancel and resolicit or uh, utilize the statute authority to directly appoint an attorney. So, I I don't have anything else to add. >> Did you have a question? >> Nope. That's that's I just wanted to
hear from you. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thank you, Corey. The other Corey in the room, come on up, Mr. Langford. mine is spelled with an E. Um, so when y'all went through the city manager
hiring process, okay, there was a motion that was made to hire the city manager on the spot and I had to unscrew myself from the ceiling when that happened. And I got up here and I talked about the process. Stick to the process. We have a
process in place to do exactly what you all were trying to do. All right. I find out about this email that went out from the procurement manager advising against what happened on Tuesday, why this wasn't discussed,
why the procurement manager was not brought up here and that that exact what just happened didn't happen on Tuesday boggles my mind. I will never understand it. Okay. So, I'm not going to get into,
you know, what what I think should happen as far as um the effectiveness of our elected officials in this city. But I'm here to ask every one of you, not you, ma'am. You were not involved in this circus.
We got to clean this up. And that's everybody, elected officials and non-elected officials. This is like kangaroo court. There's a three-step process. I'm going to have nine minutes. I'm going to get my nine minutes worth today.
But we're going to have to figure this out. If we've got a procurement manager, the guy that is he's he's he was hired to oversee this process that says, "Hey, don't do this." and then we do it. What
in the world? It it just that's why it boggles my mind, you know? I I don't understand why he was not asked to come up here on Tuesday, why the email wasn't in included in the agenda packet. I mean, I've got very
limited visibility as a citizen on on the on what y'all have to see and hear. I don't have access to y'all's email, okay? All I've got access to is that agenda packet that was 320 something pages long before Tuesday night's meeting. All right? And even if the email would have been in there, I might
have I might have missed it. But if that email would have hit my inbox, I would have seen it and that would have been an initial red flag like what are we doing here? Okay. So that's all I'm asking you all to do. We're paying y'all follow the
dag gum process. It's all I'm asking for. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> I got something to say about that. Just for the record, the email was about the $750 and the 70 to the $7,500.
In that meeting, we set that aside. Me and the mayor both talked about, okay, we're not even dealing with that. We're talking about the flat rate. Email was not about the flat rate. So, what I'm saying is I wish someone would have said in the meeting, hey, you can't do that either because we're not professionals
at this. We very rarely ever have to deal with this. The only time we've ever had to put in a score and do something is when we hired the city manager. Out of everything we voted on the entire time I've been here, this is only the second time I've had to do it. So, I Yeah, mistakes were made. I'll own it, but also wanted to add some context to
it. >> And I'll agree with that. The email we got from the procurement only focused on the material price change. It did not talk about the all-in price could not be addressed. >> So I I will add that we did discuss that
in the 101's that the all-in price that they included later could not be included. And and I don't understand why that would be a hard conclusion to come to cuz if you knew the $77,500
wasn't good because it's after the fact, then why would the $275,000 be good if it was after the fact? That doesn't that doesn't pass the common sense test to me. >> You know what? This whole process was flawed. And to be to be fair, Jamie, if
it was that messed up, we should not have been voting on it Tuesday night. And you're right, Corey Langford, Corey Bracie should have been here to discuss that. >> Mr. Bracie was here. No one asked that. You all had the email that was sent and
it was in the email where Mr. Bracie recommended it's up to the commission to decide is that a clerical error or not. >> You know, it is what it is. We have a one deep contracting person. I did not realize and I still can't see him now
behind uh Kiki without Yeah, you gota and where were It doesn't even matter where you were sitting the other night. I don't even remember seeing you here. Uh if you were here, I trust you were and thank you for being here. But I never saw you and never thought further
about it again. And y'all saw this for anybody that was here and had their hearing aids turned on or could hear naturally. Jamie and I sparred about the Apple, right? We repeatedly went over the 75 or 7500 versus the 750.
The flat rate was never even discussed as a well, this is problematic, too. It was the better option. It's like, well, we're not even considering the mood option. Let's go with the other one that we have. Right? That's where the disconnect happened for me. And Commissioner Peebles has said the same
thing. It is what it is. after I took the time to speak to not one but two procurement specialists including Mr. Scay, two attorneys including Miss Kaylor right here and the city manager who explained no. Not only is the apple problematic, the orange solution or the
orange metaphor is two and here's why. I went oh. So what did I do? For the first time in six months, I used the authority in me per the city charter and I called the special meeting for us to address this. Right. Once you've stepped in gum, bubble gum on the side of the sidewalk,
all you can do is stop, peel it off your shoe, address it, try to make sure you don't do that again, and move forward. Right? None of us are perfect. The only person that I know that's ever been perfect and walked this earth was killed as a fairly young man. So, the rest of us are, we
have our flaws. We make mistakes. We're here. We just want to fix this. We want to make it right. And we want to move on. All right. Mr. Langford, your point is very well taken. Ma'am, you wanted [clears throat] to speak. Come on up. No, come on up.
Welcome. >> Courtney Snager with Dunlap and Shipman. Obviously, I was the attorney here the other night. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, and we appreciate and of course, we want the city to do the process and to follow all legal procedures. I'm not an expert in the city of Linhaven's
procurement code. We were operating under the understanding that because you guys reached out to us and I assume the other biders with the follow-up questions that our answers to those follow-up questions which is where we provided that flat rate could be considered as part of our bid.
Otherwise, why ask if you can't >> right >> consider that. So, we were also acting in good faith and I would have to delve into the code and the legal matters um to understand further. That was our understanding is because you guys asked us, we responded that that could be
considered >> otherwise why ask? So, just wanted to bring that up. >> Thank you, ma'am. I made the same assumption when it when the info came from Corey. I assumed it >> we could use it. Right. Right. >> And I didn't realize both pieces were problematic, the apple and the orange.
>> Nor did we. So, so we do understand. We want you guys to do the right thing. Thank you. Right. Thank Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mayor, I'd like to clarify that in the RFI that Mr. Bracie sent out to all submittals, a an annual fee was not
requested. >> Okay. So, no other comments. We have a motion in a second. City manager, will you call the vote? >> Commissioner Warick, >> yes. >> Commissioner Tinder, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peebles,
>> yes. Commissioner Perno. >> Yes. Mayor Lowry. >> Yes. So, thank you for that, city manager. So, Commissioner War's motion has passed to officially close out RFP25.26-17
without a formal award. Now, that has been done. Now, our options are we can appoint the one local attorney we have that offered us the best price before, or we can go back and roll the dice and
go through the procurement process again, which Miss Kayla has already said we're not required to do under any circumstances, uh, to require mul, excuse me, municipal legal services.
I recommend we are making this clean. We're making this proper. We can still get to the same objective of hiring the same local law firm for the same fixed rate price, which is going to be 25 to $30,000 at least cheaper than what we've
spent this year and move forward. We can do so cleanly and quickly. If y'all would rather go through the whole I'm going to call it a goat rope process, we can do so. false discussions. Ma'am,
>> go ahead, Jimmy. >> So, here's my thoughts. Um, this is an extremely important decision for our city. We need to get this right. And I want a law firm that's going to be the best one to represent our city. And when I scored
these sheets, I I gave Shipman pretty high high scores. But I got to be honest with you. After going through this process, it would change. And I have concerns. And here's my concerns. One,
you need a law firm that has pays attention to detail. They missed a zero, not in just one spot, but two spots. And if it was just that, I could go with that. But that's one thing.
The other thing is when they did turn in um the bid package back saying we made a clerical error and they added the zero in there, the date of that bid stayed the same, which is correct. But when you make a change, you're supposed to initial it and date it. That didn't
happen either. So, that worries me. And I'm not a legal expert, but if I can figure that out, I would think a law firm would would figure that out. And then the last thing I have is while we're sitting here talking about the apple and the orange, they're giving us
legal advice which conflicts with what we're discussing today. So that concerns me. So that's my opinion on it. I I had no problem selecting them, but after going through
this, I have concerns now. >> Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, I make a motion that we accept the bid from Shipman. I want a local firm. >> I do too. And I think it's the right way to go. >> Not a bid.
>> I recommend we make a motion in a second and then open it up for discussion. >> Sure. I have a motion. Can I have a second for Commissioner Tender's motion? >> Who Who was the second? >> I'm asking for a second right now.
Commissioner Tender has motioned to for us to go ahead and appoint Dunlap Shipman, the only local firm, um, as our new city attorney, as we intended to do Tuesday night. >> Well, I guess I'll second just so that we can talk about it rather than just
sitting here in suspense. So let's just I'll just do that for solely for the purpose of discussion so we can get the appetite of the commission. >> Her her motion did not say appoint. Her motion said accept their bid. >> I think we should accept them as our
firm. >> Oh, you mean direct correct? Just to clarify, Commissioner Tender, you said to directly appoint is what you meant, correct? Yes. >> That we directly appoint Dunlap Shipman as our new city attorney law firm. Yes,
I do not want to go through that whole s that whole procedure again where we get well we might get two or three but you know go another 30 days and and all this we can nitpick this to death and there's
just no point. I I'm sorry but that's how I feel. >> So just to clarify, Commissioner Peebles, are you good with the modified motion as seconding? >> Yeah, just for discussion. Mayor, before we go on for Miss Rushing's minutes, Commissioner Tinder, could you repeat
your motion? >> I make a motion that we accept the Shipman firm as our attorneys. Period. >> Directly appoint? >> Yes. Yes. Directly appoint them like
we've already done once, but Okay. Any other questions or discussion among the commission? >> Is it a year-by-year contract? >> This is the intent was and what I will propose. If Commissioner Tender, you're
amable to this. If we have to amend the motion, so be it. But the intent was a one-year appointment with an annual um fixed rate. According to the RFP, if I remember correctly, we could actually remove them
within 30 days if there was an issue. At any time, either side can say, "This isn't working out. It's not you, it's me." Right? Um, but the price would be fixed. Um, the contract would be intended for one year
at that fixed price of 275K a year. >> When it came in, it's not for a year, is it? I I thought it was that until you decide you no longer want their services. >> Yeah, there shouldn't be a term in there. It was a letter of it would be a letter of engagement the commission would accept at the next meeting to
negotiate the terms. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, that's what we would do, but generally that's how you do with any law firm. You bring them in, you have a honeymoon period, you bas basically test drive each other organizationally speaking, and if everybody's good with that, you have the ability to extend.
Well, the reason I ask is because this is hard for me because I really see both sides of the argument. I see [clears throat] what Commissioner War is saying about I mean, we got to be real. There was mistakes made. So, I don't like I wouldn't want to enter into a
5-year contract after we just saw that. But I also see what Commissioner Tinder is saying and what the mayor is saying is like you're you're basically rolling the dice. You don't even know if Shipman would rebid. you don't know who would rebid and then they could come back and
charge more money. I'm typically lean towards the like I said the bird in hand but at the same time if you rebid it feels like even though we have the ability to
direct higher it rebid feels a little bit more like it's making it whole but at this like it's this is a tough decision for me is what I'm getting at because I really I really struggle with it because there's There's pros and cons to both option. To
me, it's not clearcut. It's really not. It's not a to me at least. It's not a straight up. So, I really just want to see what the appetite is of the commission is because I'm I guess I'm I'm kind of a swing vote here if I'm being honest cuz I don't have a I see
both sides. This is the way I look at it is, you know, when you uh have a car that breaks down and you need that car, right? So, you go to a dealership and you're in a rush and you're trying to get it, right? We're
not in that position because if we don't hire a law firm, we still have a city attorney. It's not like we have to rush this. This is not something that has to be rushed. It has to be done right. And if we want to do if if we want to get
the best law firm that we can, let's not rush the process. >> I would if I may, I just want to say something. So my understanding is I know we're open for discussion. Commissioner Tinder's motion is to vote to approve Don Latman to be the law firm. If that
motion were to pass, you could then make a motion to appoint the city manager or someone else to negotiate and work out the terms of a contract with Dunlat Shipman. That then would be presented to the commission and then you could vote on that and discuss that. if it's terms,
if it's unclear whether it's that 275 annual fee, if it's a monthly fee, that could be negotiated with either the city manager and donelatch shipment and then presented to you guys um if there's a concern that way. Of course, Commissioner Tender's motion may not
pass at all, but that could be the process if that were to pass, if that helps with any of your concerns. As far as the rush to hire, so I've been, as of the 20th, three days from now, I will have been the mayor six months. I had been the mayor three weeks
when Amy Meyers submitted her resignation letter. So, do basic math here. It's been five months in the making. This is not a rush to anything. And we got three bids. One of them was local. One is under
serious federal court issues. Um, and the third one withdrew voluntarily. >> So, five months and we're here. It's pretty clear-cut to me. I want to give Dunlap Shipman the benefit of the
doubt. They're a very good first string law firm. Um, and I want to see what they've got. And by the way, one of the main people, Eric, that we met Tuesday night, he lives six blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue right here. He went to Bay High. His wife went to Mosley.
They're both lifelong Linhaven, Panama City folks, except for law school. So, or college era. Having local people who are lawyers, I think it would inherently be good versus having somebody fly in or drive
in from hours away. The other two firms were actually from Central Florida, primarily where they were based. Um, this just makes sense to me. I think it's clean. I think it's direct. I say we go ahead and do Dunlap shipment, negotiate
275 like we did have Tuesday night. Any final final issues we need to resolve, we resolve them. Uh we could have the city manager negotiate that or we could appoint someone else to do that. Um Jennifer, he's actually going on
vacation so it probably be Jennifer, the assistant city manager. Um, but we can do that or we can have a commissioner do it and we press from there. That's my thoughts. >> Mayor, I would also like to say, and this is nothing personal
against Amy or anybody that we've had as an attorney, but there are a few things that really stick in my craw. And one is that Amy is the person, and Jamie knows this. Amy's the person that told our past city
manager, Vicky Gay, Vicky Gainor, that she could hang around for hours instead of being escorted out of the building. Jamie, I called him. I said, "She's still there." He came up here and interrupted prayer, I guess, is what you
said. uh there. And I don't mean that against her personally, but I'm just saying it's not like we're trying to get rid of somebody that's been topnotch and that's just one little thing. Um
uh anyway, I'm not going to get into all that. I'm just saying that they've made plenty of mistakes as well. And like you said, nobody is perfect and I think it's time to move on. Well, I'll say this.
Obviously, you know, I'm not a proponent of keeping our current law firm, but since we've had Rob Jackson, I feel a lot more comfortable with him, but I don't know how long he's going to be there for, and you know, as who's his
backups, right? So, um, I feel comfortable with him for now until we do select a law firm. >> I do also like Rob Jackson. He is a 18-year or 17-year military veteran, Navy pilot actually. Uh, however, he
made it very clear he was a temporary solution. He spends about half his year in Colorado and um will not be able to support us through big chunks of the summer and fall because he'll be on the other side of the country. So that's another reason
I do not think uh prolonging this whole procurement process much further is advantageous to us because the one attorney on the current contract that we are all like and are comfortable with will not be available to support us.
So I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Perno, you got any thoughts or inputs here, sir? Okay. Commissioner [clears throat] Peeles, anything else? My main thing is I mean I feel like we kind of need to be unified in this decision, but doesn't appear that's going to be the case. I was hoping it'd
be a 50 vote on one way or the other. I think it's important to show I don't know unity. But that being said, I if we do the direct hire, if that's that appears to be the appetite, I'd
really want to focus on doing a one-year contract. >> That's fair. >> Law firm. >> Yeah. >> All right. I like what the attorney has suggested. We take the vote, we make it,
and then we get together and have them, you know, come up with a contract for us to vote on. That makes the most sense. >> Yes, ma'am. Well, if there's no other discussion among the commission, I'm going to open the floor. I see Mr. Finch has his hands up. Come on up, sir.
>> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. James Finch, 410 East Second Street. I was in here the last commission meeting and it was 4 to1 vote on this. Now, it don't seem like any of you really want to vote on it. And I think y'all owe everybody a vote. Y'all
changed. Y'all hired these people last week. Everybody left. Then y'all decide y'all want to redo it. So, you owe these people a vote. Somebody don't want to kind of second something. They don't whatever. Jamie was against it last week. He lost four to one. He left, went home mad. He come back mad, but it was
four to one. But y'all need to do it 3 and 0, 5-0. Run them off. Not hire them. But y'all need to do something because y'all look pretty damn bad up here. Not making a decision. I in my lawsuit I settled three months ago. I got it
yesterday or day before yesterday is when I got it. Same law firm. You know what I'm talking about. That's three months and it changed. You know when it changed? I was on the way up here and y'all cancelled a meeting. Took item number seven off 10 minutes before I
come in here. Then it was another two weeks, another $15,000 worth of lawyers for me. But just do something. Don't hire anybody. Go out, but do something. Y'all owe these people a vote. >> Yep. Yes, sir. You know, I mean, if you got to pass a gave second, you can. If
they don't want to second, you can second it, but you owe these people a vote. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Basher, come on up. >> A couple things. At the last meeting, I was under the impression that maybe when I reviewed the submitts that I just
missed seeing this lump sum in there. I didn't realize it was not in there that I just assumed I missed it. What y'all are dealing with? Y'all just settled a bid rigging lawsuit. This these these things were sent in, sent to each of y'all, sent to Chris and
whoever, and then the bid was changed. And the now the low bidder is somebody that didn't even submit that bid to start with. You've got a tainted process that came in. I am not saying that anything was done wrong, but the appearance is and the opportunity was there for it to go very wrong and that's
why the procedures are in place. Um, I think y'all need to go back out for bids and do it fairly. I don't know why the other firm pulled out. It would be nice if that had been discussed that maybe you got some feedback from them that said, "Well, we just can't do it or or whatever." Or maybe you've in too many
lawsuits and we don't want to do that. But the fact is, you've got a tainted process here, and you're going to accept the results of that tainted process if you reappoint them without going back out for another bid process. And I know you don't have to. You can appoint whoever you want to, but you've got a
tainted process that you're working from right now. And unless you solve that going forward, it's going to stay. It's going to carry that taint with it. Um, but I agree with Mr. Finch. You need to make some kind of decision. If you're going to go back out, go back out. That's what needs to happen in my
opinion. And personally, I think you need to solicit some bids from people that specialize in municipal government law issues. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Busher. I will say once again, I know Commissioner uh Pero was
not here yet, but in one I said my opening statements, our city staff and our commission both pursued this RFP in good faith. Nobody was monkeying the process. Nobody was trying to throw grenades in it. Um, literally the procurement person asked
clarifying questions to the law firms, two of the three. And they came back and now the material price change. Absolutely. Yeah. But it wasn't like we were throwing grenades or now I want a hot tub, now I want this, now I want
that. Right. Procedurally it happened. And this has been a cumbersome process. I've been frustrated with it. But there was no mal intent here. This was a good faith effort to go through the procurement process that ironically we didn't have to do at all to hire a
new city attorney. So I your point is very valid, Mr. Basher, and I appreciate it. I'm just saying it's a very frustrating thing. >> Well, it's very frustrating. When the follow-up questions were sent out to the biders or to the people that put the
proposals in, did each of them get the same questions? Yes. All of them. Every question sent to everyone. >> Yes, sir. And clarification, all three firms responded. Not two of three. All three firms responded to the same questions. >> Okay. >> And we don't know why those dropped out.
They never gave us a reason. They just said >> in those follow-up questions was a was one of the questions. Are you willing to submit a lump sum price? >> No, sir. >> Okay. That answers one of my questions. So, it came out of nowhere. Not it wasn't because of the follow-up
questions that just showed up. So there's still impropriy. Looks like >> to the extent there was impropriety, I believe the commission fixed the procedural defect with their first motion that was passed today. >> Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Langford,
>> told you I was going to get my time's worth. Three things. Number one, I want to respond to what your statement was. I don't care if the procurement manager told me that y'all shouldn't proceed because they they own a pink elephant. All right? Right. I don't care what the reason is. If the procurement manager
tells me that you should not proceed with this, then I'm asking questions. That was that's my response to to your statement. The second thing, the process, whether we put this thing out for another RFP or whether y'all hired
directly, um my question would be why did we do an RFP to begin with? Why didn't we hire directly to begin with? Okay, I understand Mr. what Mr. Work's talking about. We've got a we've got a law firm. We've got legal representation. I'm not advocating one way or the other. Okay? But I think you
guys need to be 100% able to clearly articulate to us as to why you're going and justify why you're going with which process. Whether you go with another RFP or whether you hire directly, you'll be able to 100% justify the reasoning behind that. All right. The third thing
I want to talk about is the law firm that's sitting back here, M. Dunlap and Shipman. Tuesday night, I didn't know them from Adam's House Cat. All I saw was what they had submitted in their in their package, their qualifications, what they specialized in, etc. I have no reason to believe these people are not
not very good at what they do. Okay? But I too saw what happened on Tuesday night. And I'm not saying that they provided the best legal advice. I asked Miss Miss Courtney just before this meet. I said, "Hey, what was your understanding of this 275,000?" She explained to me just like she explained to you all that she thought that once
that answer came in that that was part of the bid. Now, here's where I'm going with this. Whoever y'all hire, I'm going to put them on notice just like all of you all have been put on notice. Because if we hire you all, whether it's through an
election process, whether it's through a hiring process, or whether it's through another hiring process, we expect you all to do your jobs. Okay? That's what we're paying y'all for. If I don't do my job, airplanes hit, people
die. I'm not saying it's to that level, okay? But when I say when I when when it's time to do our job, then let's do our freaking job. That's all I'm saying here. Justify whichever way you're going to go with it. It don't matter to me one way or the other. If you want, I'm sure
they're a great law firm and there's a lot of grace that's required right now to both you all as well as the law firm that we're going to hire. And I'm willing I'm willing to show some grace. There were some mistakes made. All right. I would feel a whole lot better about giving grace if no one had have
stood up on Tuesday and said, "We got some issues here." But somebody did and we proceeded anyway. All right. So, that's why it's a little bit tougher for me to swallow this pill. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Well, I'll only address the second piece
of that, Mr. Langford. Um, we've gone through this process for almost 5 months now. I have zero appetite to go through this process for another five months. We had three biders, only one local, and the other two, the only one that isn't
under a major legal scandal right now, withdrew with no explanation. Um, it is what it is. We have a bird in the hand verse to versus two in the bush. This is a very well-known,
wellestablished law firm here in town. And frankly, I like their package. I want to use them. Um, consider them our JAG. You and I are both retired military. This is a high-speed, low dra low drag jag officer option. We yay or
nay. We can hire them, direct appointment them, which is legally allowable. Florida statute. Our own city procurement policy. That's got all screwed up this time, as well as our own city charter. You're our city charter chairman. You're well aware article 3,
section 27 very clearly states the city commission has the authority to appoint their own city attorney for legal services and advice. So that's what I am pushing for us to do. Let's clear this up. We've already done the material fix.
The process got screwed up. No one threw a grenade in it, but three of the four wheels fell off the damn car. All right, we stop. We're not even trying to put spare tires on that car. We're just junking that car. We're walking over to use his used car analogy. We're walking
over to the lot dealer and going, "What other car you got process-wise to hire?" And we move forward. Any other questions from the uh the audience?
>> May I make a clarification? >> Yes, ma'am. If you were to decide that you wanted to go out and uh do the RFP process again, documents are ready. You could post it tomorrow. We could give them four weeks to respond. I believe we
during this process we gave them six weeks to respond. We could shorten the response time. You might get a different pool of applicants. Well, just out of genuine cur curiosity, Kiki, since you said that, um Amy Meyers
resigned three weeks after I took office. I'm about to hit my sixth anniversary month-wise. That's five months. I don't know what took so long for that process to play out, but it did. >> So, we had to staff had to prepare an
RFP to be advertised, then it had to be presented to the commission. You all had to approve it and then it had to be advertised. >> So five. But any disagreement with the fivemonth timeline? >> I >> I don't have a personal recollection of
when um Amy resigned. I don't remember. I trust your judgment. I don't have a personal memory. What I'm telling you is the documents are ready to go. >> Okay? >> It's everything's been written. Everything's been vetted. if you wanted it posted on the website on Monday, we
could make that happen. >> Thank you for that. >> So, any other questions or any other comments from between the commission before we vote? >> Hearing none. City manager call. >> Commissioner Tinder, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Peebles, >> yes. >> Commissioner Pero, >> yes. Commissioner War, >> no. >> Mayor Lowry, >> yes. So 41, same result, cleaner process.
It's straightforward. We can press forward. Now the next question, Miss Kayla, as you mentioned, is would you recommend we appoint someone to do the negotiation with the newly appointed? >> Yes. Whether that's the city manager,
assistant city manager, I think that's the cleanest way, the easiest way. and then that person can present to the commission the contract. >> So, our city manager is going on a well-deserved week-long vacation. If the commission is amanable, I'm fine
with assistant ma city manager Jennifer Hodgeges taking point on that. I don't know if Chris if you want to try to do this on vacation or if you're good with your deputy doing it. >> We'll we'll take care of it. It'll be Miss Hodgees can discuss with them. We'll make it happen. My question for
you is would you like for Dunlap and Shipman to be on the dis for this or would you like can A D A D A D A D A D A D A D A D A D A Dendelle to still represent the next meeting until a letter of engagement isn't approved. >> I think the proper thing would be to
have the pre until the contract is done. You want you want to wait till the contract's done before the new person. We are in agreement, but just wanted some direction from you all. >> And I while we're all here in the sunshine, like I said earlier, I would prefer it to be one year at a time if we
can. I don't know if we want to put it in the contract that we re-evaluate every year or something like that cuz that's kind of one of the issues we had. Uh issues the wrong word. One of the things that I wasn't here when the initial contract was done with the previous attorneys, but that's something I wish would have been in the contract
is rather than it just being a continuing contract that it's more of a we re-evaluate every single year >> up for renewal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> I think we need to have a motion and a second first before we can have further
discussion. >> A motion and a second to for an appointment. Okay. Um, can I get a motion to uh appoint Jennifer Hodgeges, assistant city manager, as our uh negotiator? I guess
>> I nominate Commissioner Peeles negotiate. I have a motion uh for Commissioner Peebles and whoever if we do a commissioner obviously Jennifer could work with them just fine but uh any thoughts among the commission.
>> Is there a second? >> Was there a second? >> I'm not hearing one. I'll ask again. Is there uh do I have a second? Just to be clear, you can have a second to open it for discussion. That doesn't
necessarily mean, right, you're approving the motion. >> We had a motion. We didn't have a second. So, >> I think it's a rough spot to put uh Sam in to make him in charge of the contract, but at the same time, [laughter]
but at the same time, we're going to vote on it anyway. >> Yeah. Well, >> and I like the idea of have it having it limited so that it just doesn't go on forever and ever. >> Do we have a volunteer since the motion
fails? Do we have a volunteer among the commission who would like to take point uh and coordinate with Jennifer on the draft contract? At this point, it should be pretty darn straightforward. The parameters are already clear and in place.
all step up at once. >> I don't know. It just makes more sense for an HR person to do an HR function. >> You know what? >> I mean, you guys didn't have a problem when I negotiated with the city manager. >> You volunteered to do that. >> No, no, no. You guys wanted me to do that. >> I didn't ask you to do it.
>> You seconded it, though. And you had no problem with it then. >> You know what? I have a PhD in human resources and 20 plus years experience in the space. I will be glad to step up if you all will have me coordinate with Jennifer and we will take care of this
lickety split. I bet Jennifer and I can have this squared away in a couple of hours. >> Okay. I'll motion for uh Mayor Lowry to be the point person for negotiating the contract. >> And I second it. Thank you sir and
ma'am. Any discussion further among the commission? Not I'll open the floor. Mr. Fence you had something sir. >> I was a little confused. I thought y'all hired shipment a few minutes ago. But >> we appointed we just got to do the
contract now. >> You understand? But you going to have a HR person do that. Talk to them. Whatever. You know, your lawyer should uh tell you the difference between a bid and a RFP. RFP is a request for proposals.
And most of them on a professional engineering uh hiring or something like that, you score them. You've never scored, but one since you've been here and you said twice was on the lawyer. Well, what they do is they score them and then whoever wins the score, they
rank them one, two, three of the firms. So the number one firm gets to go negotiate with y'all for a contract. He meets with every one of y'all and then y'all go settle settle with a contract and with city manager whatever and then
he comes back to commission he gets his contract. But y'all keep confusing this with a bid. It was a proposal. A bid got requirements. If you late 2:00 you one minute late you don't get it. If you don't acknowledge addendum you get thrown out. There's all kind of stuff
that goes to add a denim that's totally different from a proposal. And uh but so y'all hired this law firm today. Is that true? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, that's what I wanted to know. >> Yes, sir.
Come on up, Mr. Basher. >> Okay. Y'all decided on Dunlap Shipman. Dunlap Shipman's here. Y'all are here. There was a proposal that they made before. I don't know if there's a reason that that can't you can't ask them if they would honor that proposal and
accept it today and not even wait to do another meeting. I don't I don't know why we're waiting at this point. You made your decision. Y'all are all here. You know what the proposal was. If they will stand by that proposal for lump sum that you approved before, why not do it and be done with this process?
>> Agreed. But I [clears throat] that's exactly what Miss Hodgeges and I will be doing. I don't know if she has the authority to make that decision because she's not the >> she's not the head person. We have to talk to the head law partner people. It's so you know it is what it is. But
Miss Hodes and I will gladly take care of that. Come on up. >> You guys are doing the I'm sorry. You and Jennifer are doing the contract, right? >> We're literally going to make >> the negotiations as far as term limits and things like that. >> That makes sense to me.
>> Good afternoon, commissioners and mayor. Uh my name is Josh James. I'm also with Dunlap and Ship and I live about a half mile down the road here in Linhaven. Um I'm coming up just to answer your question. We'll honor uh the terms that were submitted in the the request for proposal. So that shouldn't be a
question that we're going to turn around and try and increase the prices. Um that's we're not doing that. Um you know, we're pleased that despite the hiccup uh that occurred that you guys are still going with us. We certainly are going to um honor that flat rate that um was discussed.
>> So, >> thank you for that >> clarification, Miss Raid, but the price in the proposal was $750 a month with a $300 an hour rate. So, I don't think we want to honor the price in the proposal if that's what we're going to negotiate.
>> Right. Thank you, Mr. Lightoot. That is correct. The $275,000 that we previously offered and was discussed, we will honor >> the orange price. >> The orange price. and we understand that you'd like to limit the time and we recognize and respect that as well and
we would be amanable. Thank you. >> I will say at the 275 there was no limit of time. It was an annual fee. >> Yes. So >> So what I will miss Hodgeges and I will plan to engage with y'all Monday or Tuesday. Um we the intent with you
letting us know that y'all will honor that is the parameters that we will go by. Um, and we will we'll go through that. We'll make sure everything is spelled out properly just as it was. In fact, we'll probably I'm s sure we'll have Mr. Corey there in with us as well.
We'll go through it, make sure everything's lined up just as it was. There should be no surprises. Everybody can sign off. We can bring it back to the commission for approval. Yes, >> sir. We look forward to it. Should be an easy easy process. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments before
we move on? Mr. Langford, come on up. I need to get some prices right music or something. >> Get my other three minutes worth here. Uh I understand what y'all are talking about about the one-year stuff. It's not required. Okay. >> It's not required.
>> Any RFP, just like you had mentioned, if you're [snorts] not happy with their services or they're not happy with us, each party gives each other 30 days and y'all say, "See you later." Y'all do another RFP and we go hire somebody else. Okay. When you do the one-year
deal, what that does is is that drives a re-evaluation of their costs that they may potentially go up after that one year. So, I don't know. I mean, they could they could go up after 6 months and present that to the commission. I'm just saying that, you know, when you drive a one-year contract, I know if if
I was on contract for one year, just prior that one year, we're going to start looking at our prices here. We might go up, right? So, is there why is there this requirement for one year when it's in the RFP that either party can give each other 30 days notice to exit
the contract? I don't understand the one-year deal. >> Past legal trauma. It's probably the best way to say that organizationally speaking. >> Okay. >> Indefinite like contract feeling like they were locked into a long-term
>> situation. And and again, I I'll just say that if there were some issues that were were identified not long after they they take over, we don't have to wait that first full year. We notify them, give them 30 days, and you're out. Do
the whole RFP deal, right? So, I don't understand why there's so much emphasis being placed on the one-year contract is all I'm saying. I don't think that's required. That's >> Thank you. >> Um I agree with you, Mr. Langford. It's not required, but I'm not sure if you
are a sports I think you're a sports fan. I know that there's it's a pretty common psychological thing. Whenever you're on a one-year contract, you tend to perform better because you know that at the end of the year, you're going to
have to prove yourself all year. If you're locked into basically a continued contract, you t it's just it's just human nature that you tend to get lax. I understand that you can cancel it at any time, but having that in the back of your mind that it's a one-year contract
t >> psychologically you tend to perform better. >> Always on parade is a military term. >> And I get it. Refer to my previous comments about doing your job. I expect you to perform every single day until you're asked not to. I don't care
whether it's a year or 60 days from now. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. I mean, that's a fair point, but it's You have to come to a consensus of five people to make that decision or three out of five to make that decision. So
like I can't just tell Chris to fire the attorney without getting two other people to do it. So I'd much rather have the one year that that gets people to do their job. >> You're still going to have to come to consensus three out of five after the
one year. >> I understand that. So what's the difference in in coming to a three out of five consensus is after 12 months than it is after 45 days when you decide you don't want them service? You still got to get three people to agree. >> That's all I'm saying. It don't m The one-year deal don't make a whole lot of
sense to me. That's all I'm saying. >> We're good. Thank you, Mr. Langford. Any other questions or comments before we press forward? If not, city manager, would you call the role, please? >> Commissioner Peebles. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Tinder? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Pero? >> Yes.
>> Commissioner War? Yes, Mayor Lowry. >> Yes. Thank y'all for that. All right. I uh this has been a four an hour and six minute long meeting. It's actually a very quick one for us, but uh out of cycle and uh uh interesting to say the
least. Thank y'all for your grace and your attention this afternoon. [clears throat] We'll call this meeting closed. Have a great weekend.