Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Action Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake City council authorizes lawsuit to recover disputed post‑employment payment to former city manager
Summary
On May 19 the Lake City City Council voted to pursue a legal judgment to recover a payment made to the city’s former manager after an outside counsel said the November 2024 budget resolution did not retroactively authorize the payment. The vote was 3–2; councilors raised cost and precedent concerns.
The Lake City City Council on May 19 authorized the city to pursue a civil judgment to recover a post‑employment payment made to the city’s former manager, following an outside legal opinion that the November 2024 budget resolution did not change the earlier legal analysis.
The council acted after Cavendish Partners delivered a supplemental legal opinion and answered council questions about whether a November 2024 resolution that amended the city budget could be read as retroactive approval of the payment. “There was no change to our legal opinion,” outside counsel Michael Cavendish told the council, summarizing his firm’s view.
Why it matters: Council action launches litigation that could return public money to the city but also expose the city to legal costs. Vice Mayor Chevelle Young said cost was her primary concern: “I don't really disagree with the pursuing legal action, but my concern is how much is it gonna cost the city to pursue this?” Councilman Jernigan emphasized that the payment did not come before the council for approval: “That council or the council before had nothing to do with this package… that did not come before this council.”
The council’s motion authorized pursuit of a judgment against the former city manager identified in meeting records. Public comment from resident Michael Lofstrom urged the council to recover the money, saying the payment “looks like [it] was made in error, so we just need to find a way to get it back.”
City Manager Don Rosenthal and City Attorney Clay Martin were directed to coordinate next steps. Martin said he had no conflict in pursuing action and could “coordinate with the city manager on the best way to go about doing that and perhaps work with outside counsel and augment those efforts.” Cavendish warned litigation costs are difficult to predict but said the expense depends largely on the extent of discovery; he did not expect the case to approach $400,000 based on his experience.
The council voted on the motion after public comment. The record shows the motion passed with the following roll call: Carter — yes; Harris — yes; Young — no; Jernigan — no; Mayor Walker — yes. Following the vote the mayor directed Rosenthal to coordinate hiring outside legal counsel as needed, with Martin available to assist.
The city has not specified the total amount it seeks to recover. Cavendish described the issue as a legal question about whether a November 2024 resolution that amended the annual budget could be viewed by a court as retroactively approving the payment; his supplemental opinion concluded it would not alter the earlier legal position. The council did not vote to approve any settlement or recovery amount at the May 19 meeting.
Next steps: staff will begin procedures to engage counsel and bring litigation documents forward; the city manager will coordinate with the city attorney about scope and outside counsel engagement.
