Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riviera Beach CRA approves executive director contract, removes telework provision
Summary
The Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency on Jan. 8 approved an employment agreement offering Jadel Murzius the executive director post, striking a telework clause and modifying notice and pay provisions after debate; the board voted 5-0.
The Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency voted 5-0 on Jan. 8 to approve an employment agreement offering Jadel Murzius the agency's executive director position, with several amendments to contract language including removal of a telework provision.
Attorney Chris Smith told commissioners the contract before them matched prior agreements for past executive directors but included one change: "There is a section, in section 3 b that referenced, that the employee may work from his home residence up to 8 hours, 3 times a month ... That has been stricken from the contract," Smith said. He added there were no other changes to the version the board had received.
The revisions drew questions from commissioners about residency requirements, pay adjustments and who must trigger renewal discussions. Commissioner Spiritus asked whether the contract required the executive director to live in the city; Smith replied there is currently no residency requirement and that any residency provision "can be discussed in the after the 6 month review and inserted into the contract." Commissioners debated a residency radius as a practical alternative to strict city-only residency.
Commissioners also debated the contract's notice language tied to renewal. Under the current draft, the board must provide "no less than 180 days written notice of its intent to renew." Several commissioners said that wording could unintentionally allow the director to treat the agreement as terminated if the board failed to act. Smith said the clause was intended to avoid an automatic renewal; the board settled on reworking the notice language to place responsibility on the executive director to bring renewal to the board's attention and to remove the provision that would let the employee deem the agreement terminated because the board missed the deadline.
Pay provisions were another focus. The contract included a negotiated starting salary and short- and long-term increase language. Commissioners discussed a $200,000 starting salary versus a $206,000 starting figure the candidate sought; they also debated removing a proposed 3% increase after six months and retaining a 4% annual increase tied to a "favorable" evaluation. Commissioner McCoy confirmed that cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) were not included in the current draft and that the 4% would be in lieu of COLA. By consensus the board directed removing the 3% six-month automatic increase, leaving the board to approve annual salary adjustments after evaluation and discussing a $200,000 starting salary.
Board members asked for a short, written performance-evaluation matrix so the standards for a "favorable" review are clear. A commissioner requested that a draft evaluation be returned within about two months so the new director knows the criteria before a six-month review.
Attorney Smith said the contract offered by the board is subject to the candidate's acceptance. The board took a roll-call vote and approved the amended employment agreement 5-0. The item will proceed to the candidate for consideration, and staff will return revised contract language and the requested evaluation framework to the board.
