October 15, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. We are here for a special city council meeting. We're going to call to order. Roll call. Miss >> Mayor Goodman. >> I am here. >> President Hines
>> here. >> Vice President Cox >> here. >> Council member Jones >> here. >> Council member Martin >> here. Council member Ricko absent. City Manager Sue Bodette
>> here. >> City Attorney Kirsten Balloon >> here. >> City Attorney Derek Bos >> here. >> City Clerk Latricia Wright, I am here. And all other staff here. >> Thank you.
We will have the opening pledge and allegiance. Prayer and pledge of allegiance to the flag. M goodness. >> Please join me if you choose. Father God, we come to you tonight with a very difficult
and very important meeting to try to resolve the issues within our community. Lord, I ask you to give these council members all the wisdom that they need to be with them, to guide them in all their
decisions, and to help our city come together as you would have us to as one community. Ask this in your name. 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 very much. So, I'm going to read the council
meeting procedures for members and members of the public. All cell phones are to be turned off when entering the council chambers. Once the audience has taken their seat and the meeting begins, there will be no talking between audience members during the course of
the council meeting. If anyone continues to talk within the audience and is called down three times during the course of the meeting on the third time that person will be escorted out of the council meeting. The audience must be recognized by the president before being
allowed to address the council. The member of the audience that is recognized will proceed to the podium, state their name, and then proceed with their comment. The audience member will be limited to not more than five minutes to speak based on the resol on
resolution 2020 20-28. There will be no personal attack by any member in the audience towards any sitting council person and likewise for any sitting council person. There will be no conversation between a member of
the audience that has been recognized and any other member of the audience when speaking while at the podium. If an audits member wants to speak more than the allotted five minutes allowed, then that person shall make a request to
the city city hall so that the item can be placed on the agenda. So we're going to go with new business discussion with possible action city of Wist investigation report attorney Kirsten Blue.
>> Evening council. >> Good evening. So we are here today on a specially called meeting uh that you all requested to discuss the uh report that was issued by Douglas and Douglas. Now that we've
talked at nauseium about it before it came out. Um you now have the report in hand. Um I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have um about the recommendations that were provided.
happy to answer any questions about um the report itself. Um and really this is just sort of an opportunity for you all to um discuss uh the report and see uh what what advice and guidance I can give you in regards to that discussion.
>> Does anyone on the council have any comments concern? >> I have question about So, I believe that and I'm I'm not sure um why the this was the version that was
provided, but I believe that this was uh highlights provided by me um at uh the request of a council member regarding um any statements that were attributed to a specific individual. So only what you see highlighted are statements or
allegations that are attributed to one specific individual. That's always started. >> Mr. cop. >> Um when we rece when we talked about doing this um it was supposed to be to where
um there wasn't going to be any employees names I think as Miss Martin had talked about a couple of times. And then when we get the report, um, there's a lot of names
in the report. If you read through the report, you could probably figure out who that person is that was talking, whichever. But there's a couple of them on here
that one was that the city manager would not be talking um you know as far as being interviewed I'm sorry um then
she was interviewed in which I felt at that point that the council itself should have also been interviewed. Um, there's a couple of names that stand out in here and I'm sorry, Miss Troy, I don't mean to pick one, but Vicky Corbin
and Kim Troy to me, I think should not have been interviewed. One for Vickiy's been with Sue when she was at Bronson and then she, you know, she's came here
to work. Could be a little bias there. Uh, And then Miss Troy lived I think in the same neighborhood or right around the corner. So I just to me that just
I don't think should have they should have been interviewed. >> Yeah, I can address a couple of those um comments questions. So the initial understanding, so just just to bring us back again to this
30,000 foot view, the investigation, the independent investigation that was initiated was based on uh allegations that we had received internally about hostile work environment specifically in the utility department. So there was no
one individual that was being investigated in this um in this process. So I think that's that's sort of important for us to keep top of mind of we had a an a general understanding going into it of this is sort of what
we're looking into of cost allegations of hostile work environment. Um as the interviews took place and information was provided to the independent investigator additional people were um asked to interview based on the allegations. So that there there were
sort of organic changes to the process that we believed would be occurring um based on just what was learned um and what was said during the interviews um in order to get a holistic understanding. Um the reason that uh my
understanding from speaking um with Miss Logan that none of the council members were interviewed is because as you all know we have the sort of city council city manager form of government and so there the understanding is that any
information that you all have is provided to you by either the city manager who is interviewed or by employees who were interviewed and that you all's involvement is charter required to stop at that
point that there there's no direction from you all to city employees um and that direction from you all to sue was provided uh through Sue's interview. So, so my understanding is that's why that decision was made by the independent
investigator is that the understanding is that the charter sort of stops you all's involvement um in management sort of dayto-day decision making um at that level. Um so that's that's why that
decision was made. Um there were a couple of other things. So, I know that we've we did talk a lot about um anonymity and the the individuals who would be interviewed and how that was going to be handled. And so, I think
that there is there was a a miscommunication or misunderstanding of what that would look like when we discuss anonymity. Um, and when we discussed anonymity,
the context legally that we were discussing that in is your statements are not attributed to you. Um, and so whenever you have an interview and you say X, Y, and Z, the concern was there
were concerns about city hall was bugged. There were concerns about if the interviews were going to be transcribed and if those transcriptions were going to be made available. And so that is what the content of the interviews itself is what has been retained anonymously with a few exceptions that
I'm going to talk about. Um the the fact that people were interviewed is and was not anonymous and was not confidential and and it's for a couple of reasons and and I do want to provide some context.
The understanding that I have from Danielle and from Megan who prov who performed the interviews, who arranged the interviews was that the communications that were had with employees who asked to interview um there were some concerns about city hall
being bugged. So the interviews took place out at the airport. Um for that reason um there were some individuals who in uh indicated that they were concerned that based on the interview times that they were provided that their supervisor or their director would know
that they were being interviewed. When that concern was raised, they were informed that there really wasn't much that could be done about that, that that information was going to be made available, right, that that their supervisor would then know, right, that
they were being interviewed. The interviews took place at the airport. Um, several city council members, I believe, um, sat outside, um, at least during some interviews. Um, interviewees passed each other in halls. airport employees were at the airport,
the public was at the airport. Um, all of those things were were reasons that from Megan's understanding and Danielle's understanding was that the cal down a little something was the reason that the fact that you
were interviewed was not of the Megan and Danielle were not of the understanding that employees had that expectation because they did pass each other in the halls. it was performed in a public place. They were provided with the information that based on their interview times their supervisors may
know that they were um discussing. And it's also relevant to note that Megan and Danielle indicated to me that uh employees did share with each other um regarding their interviews. And so sort of we all know how small towns work. um logistically there was just not going to
be a way to provide anonymity for the fact that an individual was interviewed. Um so I think that that is that's sort of the difference um that we discussed. Now there are several statements that are attributed
to specific individuals. If you note, every single one of those individuals except for one is either a director, a charter officer, or was at the time that the allegation that they
were discussing occurred a director. Right? So, I'm talking about Selena Levy, who was the HR director at the time that her statement was the statement that she was talking about was made to her. um those people were
required interviewees. There was no expectation um that they would have an option to be interviewed. They were going to be interviewed. HR was going to be interviewed. Directors were going to be interviewed. That was that was a requirement that that Megan and Danielle um decided upon because essentially
everyone sort of caught some allegations and if you caught an allegation, you were going to be brought in um to to address the allegations against you. Um, generally speaking, um, the only other individual, um, made claims regarding
specific fraudulent, criminal fraudulent behavior. And so, in order to protect the city from future allegations regarding that, it needed to be addressed very specifically in the report is my understanding from Megan. I think that that hit on every comment
that you made. Um, happy to elaborate. >> They said they needed the ball to start rolling. So, and there are some other things down in the report too that some stuff that
said about council. I'm sure that'll be addressed as well as many other topics. >> And I myself have no problem with the list of people that were interviewed. Um, as you said, people know who went, who didn't go. they did share with each
other. However, I do have an issue with the fact that they specific comments were attributed to certain staff members uh because I believe that they did expect
anonymity. I think they spoke u with much concern about possible retaliation and I don't believe that they knew their name was going to be all over these reports. And I was shocked. Not that the names
were here of who you entered at all. Had no problem in that. It was that the exact things that were said by certain people had their names. >> Yeah. And and I believe that from my discussions with Megan again that the reason that she put those specific names
in was those were directors. So those were those were not necessarily people who were concerned about retaliation from up. um directors themselves. Um and then >> the one I'm talking about >> and then allegations of specific criminal fraudulent behavior that had to
be addressed. Um again, just just as a a sort of caveat here, I know that we've discussed it, but Danielle and I did not have a hand in drafting the report. Um we received a report along with um you all. So just I provide as much context as I humanly can from my um discussions
with Megan. Um, but I can only tell you what what she's indicated to me regarding why and how that related. >> Question. Is there any is there a reason why she is not present to discuss her finding? >> I I wasn't aware that the to be honest
with you, it was sort of a a general call to discuss the report. So, I I wasn't aware that that you all wanted to discuss with her. If that um is something that you all want, I'm sure that I can set up a a discussion with you all in that.
>> I think that probably would have been um something that we should have done considering she is even though you've had conversations with her, she is the only one that can really speak to her thoughts related to these interviews and the information that was was placed in
this report. So if she can if even if it's individually speak to a council member. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> About any concerns that they may have. I think that will help. >> Yeah, I can absolutely set that up. >> Can I jump in?
>> Yes, ma'am. Um yeah, I just as you know we've had this conversation but I just want to put it out there that I was shocked when I got this and saw a list of things because in my world anonymous means without and I cannot despite
looking everywhere find any other definition of the word anonymous other than any not attached to it. And I had a very specific conversation that the public knows with Danielle regarding the employees concerns about confidentiality
and anonymous. And I used the word anonymous multiple times in my conversation with her and was assured that the only reason that an employees words would be attributed to them and that their name would be in there would be if there was a legal case that arose
from this and they were subpoenaed. And that was information that I then passed back to some concerned employees. And I am very disappointed that that was in fact not what happened. And um yeah, I as we've discussed, I don't understand why the names had to be listed. I
certainly feel that most of this had could have been compiled more generically with the ability for, you know, if we needed to to access the notes if again there was a legal situation. But, you know, when the some
of the many many concerns that employees had were fear of retaliation, um, I think listing their names was the worst for me, not for them. And we broke trust and I'm furious about it. I'm still furious about it. I'm not going to lie. It makes my blood pressure go through the roof. That said, that ship
is sailed. The names are here and I'm willing and ready to move on um, in the future. I certainly will ask for definitions of every single term including the words anonymous and confidential and everything else as we go forward into an investigation. That was, you know, I should have done that
and I didn't. And I apologize to the employees who um had concerns and that I tried to, you know, make sure that they felt confident that they would in fact be protected by coming forward in a moment like this and expressing their concerns about what they were experiencing in the workplace. And I
just want to make a public apology that that happened. and I wrote it to you guys in the letter as well. So, um, but I'm I'm happy to move on. Sorry. >> No, I agree 100%. >> Really? >> I agree 100% >> because that's what they were promised.
>> Yeah. And we broke their trust. >> Yeah. And I myself didn't talk to Megan or Daniel. So, I did not express that to them. I just thought that is what we all agree on. Um but but moving forward, I guess my
second concern with this is that um in in some moments there there's there's legal instruction, but a lot of and again you didn't write this, so this is not directed at you, but um in some places there there there is legal
instruction on what qualifies as and does not qualify as a hospital workplace, you you know what what the city can do legally. Everywhere else I found it was basically for the most part moralization of people's dissatisfaction
with their work environment. And again I I didn't feel that it needed to be as explicit as it is. Um I thought again we we did a disservice to our employees by um directly quoting them or regurgitating things that they said in a way that you know again there were a lot
of places where things um can't be proved their opinions their thoughts there's no proof and and I have concern with that because I think now there's an expectation that um that this is in fact truth and this is still not truth this is still a lot of people's opinions and
feelings and concerns there probably is a lot of truth truth in here, but not much that can be proved other than the last few pages. Um, and that said, um, you know, obviously there's a lot that needs to be straightened out, and I
don't feel that I can, um, as a city council person go back to the community and say, "Yes, we spent $25,000 on this report and we have discovered that, you know, there are some real issues with the management um, inside different
division um, sorry, inside different departments and with the quality of the management. ment inside those departments and not provide the residents and the taxpayers with a solution and a and a finite and clear
and visible and um you know a a a metered change in how things happened here. So that's I guess where I land after reading this is that there and again I don't I I agree with the last part the city council should not be part
of it but I do think it needs to be a a visible and and and um calculable change in how things um operate here. So the um the only uh couple of things
that I'll add to that is uh the regarding the allegations and the the information contained in the report. So there's a portion of the report and I I forget if it's at the very beginning or if it's the very end where uh Megan Duck
or Megan Logan talks about um the the sort of evidence standard um that she used in in drafting the report and what that is is a a prepoundonderance of the evidence um which essentially means that based on all of the however many people
were interviewed and whatever documentation they were provided and other people looked notes and files and videos and anything that they were presented. Um, and based on all of that, um, essentially it's a prepoundonderance of the evidence is the same evidentiary standard that you have
in a civil trial. Um, so it's just more likely than not, right? What things are more likely true than are not true. Um, and so that is how um, she made the decision on on what was going to end up uh, in the report. So, so again, it's not a statement of this is, you know,
beyond any and all reasonable doubt. This is absolutely what happened or what didn't happen. Um, but that's just sort of some context for how you can view the allegations and what made it into the report, what she found. So, question. So if if more than one
employee is speaking on the same issue as it relates to creating a hostile work environment and what more proof other than so now it's
like the person has to disprove that this is not the case >> right so that's just like saying the burden of proof proof is going to be on who in order to make the case, right? So,
sorry, I you're a lawyer. >> No, I'm just kidding. Um, so I I guess what I'm saying is if you have multiple people speaking on the same thing as to this occurred. >> Sure.
>> At what point do you dismiss >> what was said occurred? If you have five, six, seven people saying the exact same thing as this is what happened and this is creating a hostile work environment, how does the law not
support that? >> Yeah. So, there's a couple of things to that. Um, one is there's and there's a section on here um which is dense and complicated that talked about what rises to the level of hostile work environment. So certainly I think from
the recommendations in the report at the end while none of the thing none of the allegations rise to that level even even if true none of the allegations rise to the level of hostile work environment it's certainly acknowledged in the
report that not ideal as a work environment and definitely change um is warranted in order to address the concerns. um some of the things that um she discusses and I want to find this
section. >> You have a page, Miss. Okay, so on page two, just really quick, um the last paragraph, the investigative findings are based on a prepoundonderance of the evidence standard, which we talked about after
considering all evidentiary support, including relative credibility of witnesses and statements during interviews, whether it's more likely or not that the conduct occurred as alleged. So some of the things that um were discussed uh by Megan regarding when she talks
about witness credibility, right, is the concept of how similar stories are can go too far, right? If it seems like we've all gotten together into a group and we've rehearsed and then we figured out what exactly we're going to say, that can
weigh against credibility. Um and so things like that are what um she flagged as those were were concerns. So that that may be a reason. Obviously agree with no statement by statement specifically >> um which ones were impacted by anything like that, but that was something that
she said that there were some interviews where she had the concern of this sounds like it's been rehearsed sort of coached on a group of people in order to be exactly the same. Um which is sort of weighs against the credibility of it.
Mr. Mayor. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Can everybody hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. On page two, the statement is made and you related to the last paragraph. So, we'll go to the
paragraph before it. The city placed no restrictions on any interviews in terms of scope or questioning or time so on and so forth. Many of the disagreements between members of the utilities department
relate to various individuals. Did the city place no restrictions? That's what this said. And I have a counselor here that's saying that she emphasized restrictions. So no restrictions and restrictions
emphasize are two different things and it's difficult to use legal language to get around it. Just to clarify, I I had there were some employees who approached me with concerns regarding the um the anonymity
of the of the interviews and and I, you know, again, I did my best to clarify and spoke directly to Danielle um from Boldswalker and did my best to clarify
that their birds what they expressed in the interview would not be made public that it would remain anonymous and that is what I was told I was told I used like I said I used the word anonymous twice and I got given a thumbs up um go
ahead you can you know pass that information back to the employees so I didn't I did not put any restrictions on it other than trying to clarify what we had been told which is what it would be anonymous and confidential So you do not consider that a restriction.
>> I will leave that to the lawyer. So So I I think that what um >> we can talk around in circles and never say >> I think that what was uh meant by that comment is restrictions regarding who is going to be interviewed. Um so for
instance there were employees who no longer work for the city who were interviewed. directors were interviewed, charter officers were interviewed. Um, and so I I believe that that's what um was meant by Megan in that um interview in that
statement. In so far as you all didn't say, "We only want you to interview current utility workers in the city of Willist." You said, "Open up the doors. Let anybody interview who wants to interview, including former employees." We did have a discussion about that where we said, "Hey, it's getting kind of a long list of people who want to
come in and talk. do you want to exclude or include prior employees? And you all said open open up the gates. Um so so that's what they did and and I believe that that's what's in intended to be relayed by that statement. >> And once again, Madame President, we
find that she believes that someone else meant and that is not a reasonable assumption. Unless you have some reason to know, then we're we're speculating from one person to another person and we're
getting thirdhand party information and this is not admissible in any court law. >> Well, certainly not. >> Certainly not. I I do have a just to vent. Um I did hear from some employees that there were specific questions that were asked of
them and that they didn't feel like they were given enough time to actually tell their story or the questions that were actually asked before they were allowed to speak otherwise. Um and and some of those people are here. They could, you know, actually reiterate that if they
want to. So the fact that we didn't put restrictions on the time they felt like that we did. I do know that she reinterviewed some people a second time and that is probably why because they felt like they didn't have sufficient time the first time. >> So I think she tried to remedy that
that's not the case. >> You can go ahead. The other thing is conclusions. This is on page 12. Although this investigation originated from events within the utilities
department, it is clear that the distension and distrust and interference starts at the top i.e. the city council and trickles down to the employee. and I
would remind the council of its role, including staying out of daytoday operations of the city. To that end, I would urge the city's legal council to educate and provide training to the
council and manager about chain of command. I think this is a totally unacceptable allegation that is brought on without any knowledge of it. And I
have looked and I've asked the city clerk to look for what can the council do and what can they not do because frankly I was under the impression that this says it. But when we researched the charter, it does not say that the city
council cannot do this that and the other. It says they can do anything in the city that there is not a provision against them doing. They cannot fire individual employees. There are individual things, but as far as
restricting the council's ability, there are very few, if any, restriction except for those that are specifically documented. And the wordage, and I I have it in my office. I did not bring it here. The wordage is they are
responsible for everything in the city and they can do anything in the city except those that are designated to other people like the city manager and things like that. The only defined thing is they cannot
interfere with individual employees. They cannot fire individual employees. And uh so this accusation that it it goes from the top down is quite an extension of what I have read in this
report and I think it is misplaced and misguided and I think that council deserves an apology from these people. Unfortunately these people are not here. they they had no reason, no qualified
reason to make these allegations against the city council. Uh I just think it was a poor choice. And now, Madame President, I am. >> Thank you, sir. >> And I need to chime in on that. >> Okay. And I'll chime in after. >> Will you let me? It has to do with
those. >> I know. I said I'll chime in. >> I appreciate it. Um, I I just want to say that I have had multiple conversations with the city manager, with the department heads, with the directors, with the supervisors, with
the attorneys. Um, I will tell you that this city manager started in February that I look back on my phone. The very first message that I got from an employee who wanted to talk to me about
things was in July. That is six months after the city manager started. Six months. I can also tell you um that I asked them Have you talked to your supervisor? Yes,
ma'am. Have you talked to your director? Yes, ma'am. Have you talked to HR? Yes, ma'am. Have you talked to the city manager? Yes, ma'am. I knew that was the case because I get her weekly reports where she shows me her one-on- ones and
the employees names are there. So, I know that they walked their way up the chain of command and they didn't get any resolution and they're still feeling unjust. They're they're feeling bullied. They're feeling uh put upon. They're
feeling I won't use the words hostile because we've taken that out of the ballpark. And I'm glad there are five part steps to take and it didn't meet them. That was the best thing I learned from this report. I guess that was the first thing I told you. Uh that was the
most thankful thing that I got from the report that it did not meet the threshold of a hostile work environment. Um however, I feel like I they walked it up the chain of command, I had every time I talked to one of
them, I went straight to the city manager. Didn't tell them people's names, but I told them what I was being told. Sometimes I actually spoke with the supervisors or the directors. I have spoken to Mr. Bishop. I have spoken with
Mr. Barber. You cannot accuse me of not doing that. I have. They can all tell you that I did that. Um I had to do something. When you start hearing as much as we were hearing, not from one person, not from five people,
not from 10 people, but 10 people who have been fired, five people who have quit, you have to do something. And that's what I did, what I felt like I needed to do. And as the mayor said, I think the
the buck does stop with us. And if we can't help the men who feel like they need help because they're not getting it anywhere else, I don't know what we're here for. And I will say on that note as well when
I read that um it bothered me a little bit um because I don't think that the issues that are being had started with the council. It was the council that was trying to help
resolve it. That being said, there is a chain of command and everybody needs to be following that chain of command. But the chain of command ends with the council, right? So the fact that that was done, I don't think that allows for
somebody to say that we are the problem, right? So maybe we shouldn't be involved in the day-to-day and I don't think that we are involved in day-to-day decisions, but when problems arise and situations arise and the manager is dealing with
them, she reports to us at the end of the day. And if her actions are not appropriate, and I'm not saying that they're not, but if her action was not appropriate, then we have to step in. That's part of the operation of the city.
So I yeah I kind of agree with the mayor when it comes to the fact that somebody needs to apologize but it's not just about apologizing but um and not laying blank but if we don't figure out where
it starts we can't keep it from continuing. So, I think a a couple things on on that specific point and and and I want to like start with the mayor's cons and go all the way through because I really
feel like um we sort of covered the gambit of that particular recommendation. So, section 2.06 06 of your charter says all powers of the city shall be vested in the city council except those
specifically given to the mayor or the charter officers or specifically reserved by the charter to the electors of the city. Okay. So that is what we call a catchall clause. There are specific powers that the city
of Williston holds as a municipality that the charter provides to Latricia, provides to Sue, provides to myself, provides to the mayor, provides to the electors. Other than that, you all hold everything else. Okay? So, that's that's
what that means. When you look at what the city manager is responsible for her powers and duties, directing and supervising in accordance with ordinance and policies as is
adopted by you all, the administration of all departments except police and fire and the office of the city clerk. appointing, suspending, demoting, or dismissing city employees under her supervision in accordance with law and
authorizing department heads to exercise those powers regarding their subordinate employees. Seeing that all laws, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, and other acts of the city council related to departments under her supervision are faithfully executed.
So those are and then perform other such duties as required by law or the city council. That's that's sort of an other catchall. The chain of command is two-tiered there. There are two different chains of command and there's a a lineal
connection at one point. So you all as the city council sit over and are in charge of all of the charter officers. The mayor sits over and is responsible
for police and fire. And then under the charter officers um each of us would have our own subset right. So Sue has the departments that are under her. That's every single employee that isn't police or fire that
isn't the attorney's office and that isn't in the city clerk's office. Other than those those three categories, every single employee that works in the city reports to sue under her supervision. Now obviously there are supervisors and
directors and the interim in between there. you all are in charge of and you are Sue's one chain of command, right? But you all aren't in the same chain of
command as an employee of the city of the city of Wilson. There is no after sue there is you all to resolve employment decisions. Your charter provides exclusive
authority for employment decisions to be made and administrative decisions to be made by your city manager. So you all decide based on policy decisions that you make that you pass via your HR policy or you
pass via your ordinances. You all set the goals and the mission of the city. Um for instance, efficient customer service, right? Via a goal or a mission. And then you tell Sue, go forth and
create efficient customer service. That's what we're directing you to do. And then Sue decides person A is responsible for task A, person B is responsible for task B. The how
is Sue's exclusive authority and it's not reviewable by you all on a decisionby decision basis. There is no appeal process for that to you all as a city council. Now, if you have a certain
goal policy using efficient customer service, I'll use that for the rest probably as an example and you say, "Sue, go forth and create efficient customer service and customer service is the slowest, least efficient, everything's horrible,
and nothing works." Then you say to Sue, not you shouldn't have assigned person A to task A or person B to task B. You say to Sue, this was our goal, efficient customer service. This is what's not being met, right? And
that that is your review process pursuit on a goal, mission, policy level, citywide, but the decisions. So, I just want to make sure that when we're talking about chain of command, the chain of commands for all of the
employees stops at suit there, there is no appeal process or review process for this council for specific employment decisions that are made by the city manager. What there is is an analysis of you all of we have certain goals,
missions and policies of this city that we have created for the city and that is how we review and how we manage our city manager. Are you meeting those goals? Are you are you providing administration of these different departments that is
meeting the expectations of how we want our missions to be met, right? And so I think that that's that's the lateral piece, right? Sue is the top of the employee chain and then you sort of move over and then there's you all and
Sue, but everybody else is in a different chain and then obviously the mayor and then police and fire are in their sort of own separate column. Um and then you all um have all of your other powers obviously ordinances and all of that kind of thing
that we do on a day-to-day basis. budget is your big thing. So when you when you think about the way that the city works, it's it really is exactly like a much smaller example of
the federal system of government where you have checks and you have balances and you have departmentalization. Your chief executive officer, your president is your city manager.
You all are the Senate and you all are the House of Representatives. You all make the law. You all decide what the law is. Your executive carries out the law for you and nobody gets into each other's l. So I think that what
when we when we talk about chain of command, we just need to make sure that that we keep that in mind. If you all you all review Sue or and preside over her her decision making in so far as big policies, big goals,
big missions and not itemized dayto day. Does that make sense? I talked for like 15 minutes. So >> if something in the beginning didn't make sense, good good luck telling me. >> But
>> yeah, but at the end of the day, Sue still answers us. >> She She does. Absolutely. And I and I'm sorry to tell you, but at the end of the day, if these pe if these employees are not being treated correctly
and I have talked to the city manager who I'm to the supervisors and the director, not trying to tell them what to do, but trying to tell them that something's got to give.
You've got to do that. I mean, you can't not you can't just let them continue to suffer like they're suffering. I we you know what the things we found. That could not continue. And all the talking we could do didn't change it.
So something had to give whether it's the chain of command or not. Um that's just the way I feel about it. You can't let people be bullied. You can't let people be treated unjust, unfair,
be penalized for things that somebody thought was wrong or that they did not to their liking, which I mean, all you got to do is read this. Uh, and it's there. You see it. Um, I can't ignore when somebody's being
treated unfairly and unjust. and I can go back to the people that are in charge of it, but when that doesn't do me any good, we have to talk about it in here. And that's what we're doing. And I'm I'm going let Mr. Cox talk in
just a second. And I think we have to I'm gonna hold my piece, Mr. Cox. No, go ahead. So, one of the things that I've done ever since I've been on the council was when I if I was off and I'm out and about in the town, if I see the the guys
and ladies out working, always would stop by, see what they're doing, talk with them, you know, and just, you know, the interaction. And uh so not clear. We're not supposed to do
that. So >> because what what I was told by director supervisors is the staff likes that because we do come up and also too if there's um issue with equipment or
whatever we see and maybe we can help facilitate it get it quicker or you know whichever depending upon what it is. We shouldn't be we should not be
criticized or uh whatever word you might use for stopping by and visiting with them. >> Yeah. So I I don't think that that is what what that that's not that is not a problem, right? And and in my conversations with
something something to keep in mind is you all hold positions like the pen ultimate positions or the ultimate positions of power in this city, right? You are the city council members and you make laws, you make policies, pass the ordinances.
And so when you talk to employees, that's fine. There there's nothing wrong with discussing with them. The the problem can arise when theoretically what should happen is let's say you go out and you
talk to an employee and employee says we are I mean we are just having the roughest time getting this piece of equipment and you say okay maybe I can help with that. Then you come to Sue and you say hey they're having like a really rough time getting this piece of
equipment. Anything that can be done can I help you in any way? Hey, do you need anything from me or I know this guy? And then if Sue says, "Awesome. Can you contact your guy?" That's great. If Sue says, "I've got it under control. No problem.
Handled." Then that's that's the end of your authority under your charter to to act on that because the day-to-day decision making and administration and executing of things falls to your city manager. So
the problem is not talking to employees and getting information from them. The problem arises when it's interpreted and it doesn't mean that I I think that it's important to point out that it doesn't mean that it's
happening intentionally, right? A lot of the time you can say like I I think that like maybe something you should try employee that like like might help you is this thing and then an employee interprets that as I was told by a city
council member that I need to do X Y and Z or that that's what I should do and it's not what you said but it's what they heard because of the power dynamic and the imbalance there. So it's not necessarily this nefarious action that
is believed that you all are taking or anyone is taking. It can be something as simple as you should try X and what's heard is go try X. You have been informed by a city council member that you shall try X and now we've got a
deviation in our chain of command. So, so that that is where it can can cause issues and it's not something that you anyone would do intentionally, but it can create these problems. So, it's just it's not a problem to speak with employees, but it's just something that you have to think about when you're
discussing of how things are worded and and how they they move forward. >> And and I've talked to I've had employees come to me and like Miss Jones, I'll ask Dr. supervisor, you talk to this person,
talk to that person. Now, sometimes they just need to vent. That's all that they want to do. But then there's other things that they're concerned with and have an issue. At that point, I've, you know, have gone
to sue and said, "Hey, I don't give names, but you know, this is this is what I'm hearing. this is what I'm being told and you know to go as far as with that but I'll always ask
him you know you have you talked to AB and C with that so I don't know where that we're telling people what to do I don't know where that's coming from
>> Sue what are your thoughts thoughts related to this report me right on the spot right um >> I guess that's fair um and and I've spoken with several of you about this I mean I feel
like a lot of you feel I was I'm sorry but I I felt like it was going to be anonymous and confidential was my first reaction when I read it was there a lot of a lot of names. Matter of fact, on my particular copy, I highlighted in orange every single name that was mentioned in here. So, you can see how many names are
are highlighted. That was my first reaction. Um I wish it had had more concrete um recommendations as to how to proceed. To me, the only thing that came out of it was the time clocks, which of course we were already in the process of
implementing. Um, so I wish there had been more concrete um, findings there. I was also happy, like councelor Jones said, to read the legal opinion about um, you know, the fact that it wasn't a hostile or toxic work environment. Know
that those are kind of buzzwords these days and people are unhappy that's kind of what they throw out there. So I was happy to see if there was a legal definition and it didn't meet that legal definition. Um, I mean pretty much the same reaction as all of you. for $25,000. I wish there had been more
substance. How we all >> Okay, I'm put you on the spot again. >> At any point since you have been here, and this includes me, please tell me. But at any point since you have been here, have you felt like the council or
any point within the council has tried to tell you what to do related to the employees specifically related to um hiring firing disciplinary actions and do you feel like it's interfered
with your ability to do job that you've been hired to do? I know that's a lot. >> That that's a loaded question to have to respond to five of my bosses, but I I will give it my my best shot. Um,
>> no. N, and I've said this to to several of you. I feel uniquely qualified to answer this question because I spent four years as a town manager and I spent four years as a city counselor. So, I have been on both sides of this equally. Um, yes, the city
that I was a city council in was bigger. It had about 10 or 12 thousand um residents. There were nine members of the council. But I did not know my city employees. I'm just going to be honest with you. I did not know who worked at our wastewater treatment plant. I didn't
know who worked in our roads and streets. I knew department heads. I knew, you know, finance manager. I knew our city attorney, the people who showed up at the meetings. But I definitely could not have told you majority of the employees. Um, so do I feel like perhaps there have been times the council may be
overstepped? Yes. Now, I have been trying very hard because I know that I'm not perfect. I know that, you know, we you guys have had some issues with me since I started because it has been a very different type of environment than what I was used
to in Bronson. Um, so I have been trying very hard to ask you guys and I'm just going to use the time clocks which is the most recent conversation I have with several of you about, you know, did you want to know did you did you want me to come before you to ask to implement the
time clocks or were you just simply asking to be notified that the time clocks had been put in place? I was originally thinking that it was the former and then several of you said it was actually the latter. And for me, that's an easy fix. I mean, when I put out the email that said effective October 1st, we're going to these
biometric time clocks. Everybody needs to register their fingerprint with Aaron, you know, I could have simply just said forward to the council, you guys knew what was going on and then, you know, when someone asked about at the last council meeting, it would not have been an issue. So, that's a learn just a learning curve for
me. Um, so I take, you know, I do take some of that responsibility. I mean, I I'll be honest. I've never been involved in anything like this in any of the corporations that I've worked in. I take this, you know, very seriously. I feel like a lot of this does fall on me, and I do feel like there there does need to
be changes, which I have been thinking about very strongly since this report was released. Um, and you know, I I wanted to obviously have this discussion first before I did anything because I wanted everybody to weigh in on it. But
yes, I do have some some suggestions or some, you know, thoughts in my head as to how >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> I just want to step in and say um for anybody listening or here that I think
all of these problems existed before Sue or so if anybody thinks that this is in any way something that Sue created um we can just you know this this I think has And again, I've only been here for not yet two years, but those of you who've been here for longer than me, I think,
and any of the employees can attest to the fact that this is something that has been going on for many, many, many years. And unfortunately, I just think it came to a head when Sue became city manager for just, you know, the way a volcano just some
someday just randomly erupts. Um and um so yeah, so I just I wanted to make sure for anybody listening that there was not the impression that Sue created these problems. Um and like she said, I mean I think that um
the way that she was she operated at her previous job, you know, she didn't in a sense have anybody necessarily to answer to. So for her in that respect, she has to learn. And she and she said this, I'm
not critiquing or or talking about talking about anybody, but she has to learn to um be mindful about information that she can give or not give to us related to things that are going on within the city. That way we are um all
on the same page and know what's going on within the city. >> And I'll just continue by saying that unfortunately as city manager, it is your job to fix it. And I think that's what I'm looking for tonight for over the course of the next few meetings is
that there is very clear as I said earlier clear and measurable change um that is affected based on this report and not just the report but generally speaking the culture which I think is what got the city council involved
because to be honest same thing I I did not know really any of the employees until July >> right and I have you know for better or worse met a lot of them um and and the reason I think that they came to us was because they felt that their change was not happening and that they had
exhausted their ability to um to express their concerns and frustration and fear and um and I you know I'm grateful that it came to a head and that you know the ugly underbelly has been exposed of kind of what has has has uh
brewed over the years. Um but uh yeah, I'm looking for I'm looking for forward to that culture change and >> I think it's I mean it's it's definitely a could be a good and bad thing because I've always said that if you don't know
that there is an issue, how do you fix it? Right. So maybe them coming, the staff coming to members of the council, that was their way of trying to get the information that they had so that somebody could
actually acknowledge you. So, I just going forward hopefully we can work together and um support um each other from top to bottom, bottom to
top. I want to add that Miss Sue did sit down in a hordance nest. Uh there's no way that it wasn't going on before she got here. uh and what I am looking for her to do is to make a substantial difference to
make a change. Uh I will also in all aspects of truthfulness both before this report and after this report bannering around in her office. We've had two three-hour conversations. We've had 45 minute conversations, hour
conversations. She has asked me what would I do. The first time she ever asked me that, I told her I had no idea because it was I just felt like it was a total mess and I had no idea what I would do. Um later after the report she's asked me
again, what would you do if you were sitting in my chair? That's and I told her it up to her but I have told her what I suggested. U it it's totally up to her what what happens and I know that there's nothing I could do. I just need
the public to know there's nothing we could do. That that's part of what this meeting is. We can only do so much and we get blamed for everything. Uh, we do. Um, I will also say going back to something
somebody else said earlier, opening up another the can of worms again. I don't particularly want to, that uh, in a most recent staff, not department heading, but a staff meeting. Um, they were told that they
couldn't speak to council members. I don't like that event. if they want to speak to us about hello, how are you? Things are going good, things are going bad. Um, I think they have every right to say hello to us, say goodbye to us. I can tell you at least
three or four people came out of that meeting and told me that she said that. Um, and and I just they resent it. So do I. So if they need
to speak to me about something, they should have the right to do that. This is a rec. >> Sorry. She meaning >> can I address that because I do want to address that. >> Yes. >> So I have had probably three staff
meetings with the entire staff minus the department. So our employees and in each instance I asked them not to speak to the council to follow the chain of command to try and resolve our issues here at Hall. I have never once forbade them from talking to I can't. You're
right. It's free country. Exactly. Never ever said that. >> Never used the word. >> I said it. >> Well, I'm not I can tell you I'm not going to mention it yet. >> Absolutely not. Because obviously it's not being you know the correct way. No,
I've never ever gave anything like that. Absolutely not. I did not. >> You know, when Sue first had her uh cookies
with the city manager. Uh there was a meeting that had taken place afterwards and to me it just seemed like what she was trying to do is being undone over
here by other people. Now did I tell her what I thought if I was manager what I would do? Yes, I did. Because you have individuals who are trying
understand why they're doing it. why they did it, but it's still it's not right because she's trying to write a ship. And just had some couple individuals that wanted to form a meeting and
and discuss to save a employees job. So, so yes, I did meet her and I did tell her what I would do. A lot of times she asks us, "What would you do?" >> She does. >> And I tell her what she asked.
>> Sometimes I tell her what she doesn't ask, >> but that doesn't mean she has to do it. And I know that. >> You know, there's also been said, apparently the way I took it is we're being blamed for talking outside of here to people about what's going on.
Um we had a meeting at the crossings with uh Swani Lee. Here are two of our business associates that we deal with and work with talking about
things going on with the city stuff that should not have gone out there. So I know I didn't talk to anybody about it but you know we were blamed. That's how I took it out on the report
and that was we were the ones doing it. >> So miss too ask you another question. >> Just now that ending conversation between you and Miss John, how did that make you feel
>> about the what the staff said? Mhm. >> I mean, it doesn't make me happy that the staff is saying that. That's for sure. >> The reason I asked the question is because at the end you said, "Well, I guess I won't say that again." >> So, it's like as though you are changing
how you are governing based on what somebody else said >> only because it has come up several time. It came up after every single meeting. So, I know that it's being misconstrued. And
it's not the only thing that's being misconstrued. So I just I want to be I just want to be more careful about what I say in those meetings. That's not that I'm not saying I'm having them or anything like that. I'm just saying there have been other things that have been misconstrued. And I'll
tell you specifically at the last meeting I got asked about this report and how the individual employees could get this report and somebody misconstrued it as saying that I had the if an employee wanted it they had to go
and submit a foyer request and I said I can tell you right now I never even use the word foyer in a >> I didn't even know what she did when she >> so >> I didn't >> I said because Latricia and I had talked about it but how did the employees a copy of the report. We went back and forth. I said, "Should I just bring
copies of it or and she said, "No, no. If anybody wants it, just come to me." And that's literally what I said in the meeting was, "Anybody wants a copy of the report, please go to Latricia." And I even asked several staff people after I said, "Please tell me what I said." And they all confirmed what I said. But yet, it came back to me that I said I
have request. So, I know there's just things that are being misinterpreted. So, I just need to be better about what I say and how I don't want my point is I just don't want to say anything about going to the council or not going to council because I just I I think that's creating a rift between us that we don't need. I'm trying to make our, you know,
conversations better, not worse. So, I just think that's it's just not the right thing to say. That's what I mean by that. I wasn't trying to do that. I just I don't think it's the right thing. >> And and and I I was involved in what she was referring to. Um and it was it was my misunderstanding
um and and employees misunderstanding that they were being asked to to submit a foyer request. Um and I think the burden is on me and also on the employees. If you guys have if you're confused or you feel like perhaps that what you've heard is not something you're comfortable with, I think the
burden is on all of us, I'm including myself in this list, to go to the city manager and say, "Can you please clarify what you meant? And are you actually asking us to do this before, you know, we raise the alarm bell and, you know, we we get in the lifeboats and jump off
the ship." Um, and I think that burden falls not just on us as city council, but also on all of the employees here as well to try and calm the waters and understand that everybody's trying to be on the same team and um, I will own my part in that situation.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else on the >> Anyone else on the council have any thoughts or comments? I I just think really a lot of it the issues
uh that we have is communication. Um we have Miss Latricia who's been our clerk for some time. We have
Miss Vicki who's come in and works as an administrator for Missou. But there are things that we have done that is I say we um that Miss Latricia has done in the past and it's like they're trying to
recreate the wheel instead of asking Miss Trisha, hey, have you guys ever done this or have you done this in the past or that in the past? Because if not, they're spinning their wheels over here creating something
that's already been in place for some time. And uh so I I think that's the big part of it with Miss Latricia. She's the keeper of the records. All that information needs
to be go to her so she can put it away and so somebody requests it and stuff like that. It shouldn't be given to different people. It shouldn't do it should go strictly to her. Uh but I I think that's a big part of it.
But I have asked in the past is to go spend a day with Latrician, find out what all of her duties are, what she's responsible for. And um I think if that's done and that will be
a good be a good thing. But I think it's just I think it's just a communication. You know, it's a different We're different than Bronson. Bronson's small town, but you know, Mr. Trish has
done a really good job the last I've known her five years. And I think for me, she has acknowledged in the conversations that Mu and I have had, she has acknowledged that um she needs to communicate a little bit more
effectively to make sure that um everybody's on the same page. Um so the fact Mr. She has Yes. Um so the fact that she can she can acknowledge that
and make an effort to work to change that says a lot. Not everybody will um admit to shortcomings or mistakes. Um not saying that you have just saying you
know just clarify not saying um but yeah so moving forward um it would be great to see what your management style is and how you um tried
to write the ship from where it is today. um so that we can have a city and employees that want to come to work that like coming to work and can get along with each other. We're not asking you to um be the best of friends, but when we
come to work, we spend most of our time more time with people at work than we spend with our own families. So, we need to be able to, you know, get along and um if you have any issues, we're all adults. Talk to each other. try to hash
it out before you go to management. Um if you can, sometimes you can. Um so today's a new day. We need to start um to try to put things back together so that employees want to come work and
want to work. That's just my >> Yes, Mr. Patricia. >> I'm sorry. I just want to clarify something that um council member Cox said what he was referring to. Someone had asked me about a public records request and it was a document that I
didn't have. So it was just a misunderstanding that I didn't get it. But Sue and I have talked and she said, you know, she's used to doing everything and I I can understand that. It's hard to let go because I have a hard time
myself trying to let go of what I do to let Biggie assist me. So, we we sit down and we discuss it. And like you all said, the biggest thing is communication. Communication. Communication. If you think there's something wrong, go to
that person and just ask. Because there's been several times that I myself, most of y'all know I'm very vocal. you know, I don't I don't like conflict. I think everybody should have peace. And I went to Sue and I said, "Hey, Sue, I need to talk to you." You know, and we
would discuss the issues that I have felt or either I have heard and vice versa. And you know, after I said what I said, she would say, "Well, this is what I heard." And it was just all miscommunication. But you can't move forward unless there's communication.
And that's what we're missing. And I think we've come a long way on that. Uh you were in Bronson everything. You were the city manager, you were the city clerk, you were the finance director, you were you were everything. You were probably four other things that
I don't know. Uh code enforcement, you were everything. And over here, we've got all those things. And it is hard to let them go. It's hard to realize that those people have a job of their own. Um and to let them do it. Going back to something that I think that Mike that
started it. I think it and you and I have had this conversation. I think it's very important that every text and every email that you send to the council has Latricia and the mayor on it because a lot of them don't. And they just don't.
And I think every text and every they're they're part of they're part of us. Uh and email I even want to put Kirsten on there as as another charter officer. um she may not want to get four million emails a day, but I know as the records custodian, Latricia does need to know
what's going on and the mayor needs to know everything we know. He gets the same questions from the public that we do. So, I think it's very important that whatever that distribution list is that they be added to it, both your text list and your email list.
>> There I go. No, it's fine. >> And I will say that um Vice President Cox actually was the one that brought that to my attention in the last month or two. So, yes, I've been trying very hard to do that and I apologize for not including the mayor and I will certainly do that moving forward as well. Thank
you. So, >> I think we were spoiled with Jerry, our former >> city manager, >> because anything that was going on, we knew about it.
>> He everybody who knew about it got the text and everything. We were, you know, we were spoiled by that. And you know, like you said, you bronson, you were everything here. You don't have to be everything
cuz there's a system that was already in place. So, just think >> and that's not to say that system was perfect. You know, as new as as new people come in, things change um for the
better or the worse, but we're going to look for better. Um, so that's just kind of like where I feel like we're are we are. And if the council has nothing else, the mayor has nothing else. Is there any Okay.
>> If it pleases the president, I think you're saying that the council is pretty much ran its length. So, I want to address this to the city clerk. You're going to need Mrs. Vicki a lot more
because each one of the council members are going to spend eight hours with you during the day. You will lose a week. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank Is there anyone in the public who has any questions,
comments? Any staff? >> Mr. Eert, turn the mic. Thank you. Okay. >> My name is Tim Ecker, 225 North 46 Street. Um, it seems to me that listening in this meeting here that uh there's been a lot
of miscommunication on everywhere here, not just everybody. I'm not placing blame, but in the construction industry, if you got a $12 million job, you got one boss. Then the rest you got supervisors in the field that take care of it. And then if you
got supervisors, they all get together and have a game plan on a Monday what they do during the week. So they all have a game plan so they all step on each other's toes. And it it's not about who's above who or what, but at the end, you got one
supervisor that's accountable for all of it, but if that one supervisor can't get together with the supervisors underneath and take care and talk about certain things and listen to what's going on, try to work things out. And if there's
an employee or employees that are can't seem to get along, you fire them. You don't worry about who they feeding, who they ain't feeding. But at our expense, the taxpayers,
it's costing us money deep down. And if you were owner of a company and you got employees cost you money, they're down the road. They kicking rock. They kicking cans. Can't worry about who's crying or who's happy. At the end day, it's about money. It's
about dollars and cents in here. We all trying to live dayto day. Don't matter whether we Republican, no matter whether Democrat, no matter what color, it don't matter what walk of life we're from. We all the same at the end of the day and we all believe the same. But when you
see constant arguing and me as a resident, you ride around, you see things that just are not being done. And y'all, I know y'all catch it all the way. But you know what? Um, really and truly, it's the city supervisors, not the supervisor per se,
cuz she's in office. It's the supervisors at the end of the day that run this city. Very, very important. At best, if they were anywhere else, they would have been fired within a week, two at best. They would have been given a
two-day notice to kick rocks. Something's got to be done. Not y'all's fault, but there's got to be a common sense approach to this. and it's not being done. I'm sorry, but I this is how it's got to be. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
>> I'll just say I look forward to seeing what Miss Sue decides to do. Though she's got a hard job on her hands, um a hard decision on how to It's hard to make 40 150 people happy.
um you it won't happen. It won't happen. So do what you think is best and let's get on with it. Okay. If we have nothing else, we will go on to item number
four participation. I think we just did that. >> Well, that was that was included in the discussion. >> Gota was the only thing on the >> Okay. All right. All right.
See, >> I like to know who can I can I get her seat because she's not here all the time. I mean, how do I go about getting if she's here a certain amount? She's not here. If she's not here certain amount of times in a year, how do I get her
>> run for it? >> Because, you know, she's not represent the taxpayers properly. Any announcements from the count? Any announcement from the staff?
Anything from the lawyer? Attorney, I'm sorry. Okay. Would you like to announce that? >> Miss Latricia, can you announce? >> I'll try my best to elaborate on um Chief Rose. Chief Rose is being recognized
at the Central Florida Community Action Breakfast as community partner of the year. >> Yeah. Chief Rose Chief Rose assistant in helping fund raise for them and he
raised a very nice amount of money to assist them to help residents that will be in need or or in need if there happen to be a national disaster or just aren't able to help pay their electric bills or something. So, thank you, Chief Rose,
for the great job that you did in assisting them in fundraising. >> Thank you. >> I would comment that we're also going to the Florida League of Cities legislative committees on Friday >> uh to represent the city and learn what we can learn.
>> Thank you, President. Is this Friday the trip on an airplane? Okay, that's not that I I never remembered that date. So that's why it's in my Apple phone that I had to turn off >> like the third week of November.
>> Okay, I won't remember that. My Apple >> We'll remind you. >> Keep asking. I'll send it to you. >> Is there anyone else? Anything from staff announcements? All right, then adjournment. Can I get a
motion? >> Make a motion we adjourn. I second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There is none. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Four to zero.
Meeting ends at 7:28