Gunbarrel City council narrowly approves first amendment to city managers employment agreement after heated debate

Gunbarrel City Council approved a first-amended employment agreement for the city manager after a contentious discussion about the charter and who sets employment terms. The motion to approve the amendment passed in a roll-call vote; a prior motion to reject the amendment failed.

The debate mattered because several council members disputed whether the amendment conflicted with the city charter—s language about the manager—s term. Opponents said the council should retain exclusive authority to set terms; supporters said the item before the council was an amendment to an existing contract, not a new multi-year contract.

Councilmember Rita moved to reject the first-amended employment agreement; that motion did not receive enough votes and failed. A later motion to approve the amendment passed on a subsequent vote with the following roll-call: Burns yes, Evans no, Jacobs yes, Larson no, Edwards yes; the mayor stated "Motion passes." The meeting transcript shows an earlier vote on the rejection motion that also split the council.

During discussion, Councilman Berson said he had consulted legal counsel and described the amendment language as "unprecedented" compared with prior manager contracts. Other council members cited the city charter's Section 4.01 language during the debate; one councilmember read aloud language stating the city manager "shall be appointed for a definite term and may be removed at the discretion of the city council."

City Manager Dr. Smith and city staff did not propose new policy in the meeting; the item was limited to action on the employment amendment. The council did not detail any new operational changes tied to the amendment during the session.

The council took no additional, separate direction to staff on implementation during the vote beyond approving the amendment. The measure will stand as adopted pending any future administrative or legal follow-up.

Questions and points raised during the debate included whether the charter required an indefinite term and whether an amendment to an existing contract required a supermajority. Multiple council members urged clarity; one councilmember asked that the motion maker repeat her motion for the record before voting.