Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Dismissal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodbury City Council votes to dismiss probationary employee Michael J. Fletcher
Summary
At its Feb. 12 meeting, the Woodbury City Council voted 4-0 with one abstention to dismiss Michael J. Fletcher, a probationary City employee, effective Feb. 12, 2025, following a recommendation from the City Administrator and review by labor counsel.
The Woodbury City Council voted on Feb. 12 to dismiss Michael J. Fletcher from City employment, effective Feb. 12, 2025, after a motion from Mayor W. Burt and a second.
The dismissal followed a recommendation from City Administrator Clint Gridley and review by the city's labor and employment counsel. Mayor W. Burt moved the motion; Councilmember Steve Morris seconded it. City staff told the council that they received documents from Fletcher's union representative by email at about 6:45 p.m. the same day and that the documents did not present new information relative to what staff had already reviewed.
The council discussed whether to delay consideration and take the documents up in closed session, but the council proceeded to a roll-call vote. Councilmember Wilson abstained, citing insufficient information; Councilmembers Santini, Stafford and Morris and Mayor Burt voted aye, and the motion carried.
City Administrator Clint Gridley told the council that Fletcher is a probationary employee and that the city had offered a pre-termination meeting as a courtesy. "Just note for the record at, 06:45 tonight, I did receive via email, 3 documents from [the union representative]," Gridley said, adding that the material was consistent with prior submissions. The council's labor and employment counsel advised that if members wanted to review the late-submitted materials together, the council should go into closed session.
The council did not go into closed session and did not take further public testimony on the matter; the action before the council at the time was the termination motion. No additional remedies or appeals were described publicly at the meeting.
The dismissal was presented to the council as an employment decision arising from ongoing personnel processes handled by city staff and labor counsel; the city attorney's memorandum and other detailed legal materials were described as private work product and were not included in the public packet.
The council did not adopt any additional policy changes or direction related to personnel authority during the meeting, though members discussed the broader question of whether the city's current form of government and division of authority between the council and the city administrator should be revisited in the future.
