Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel And Compensation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lake Forest council approves seventh amendment to city manager's contract in 4-1 vote; dissent cites process concerns

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a heated public comment period, the City Council approved the seventh amendment to the city manager's employment agreement by a 4-1 vote. Public commenters criticized the raise and asked for more transparency; one councilmember voted no on procedural grounds.

The Lake Forest City Council voted 4-1 on June 3 to approve a seventh amendment to City Manager Deborah Rose's employment agreement following the council's annual evaluation process.

City staff said the amendment responds to a positive annual evaluation and provides an increase in base salary and employer contributions to deferred compensation. The amendment presented to council lists salary and deferred-compensation adjustments in the agenda packet.

During public comment, resident Andrew O'Connor sharply criticized the raise and sought more transparency about the evaluation process and the numerical criteria used by the council. O'Connor also listed several operational complaints and questioned the city manager's performance on a range of items, then called for resignation.

Councilmember Benjamin Miao Yu moved approval and Mayor Pro Tem (Campagno/Pacino) seconded. Councilmembers Doug Servo and Robert Serbo spoke in support, praising the city manager's leadership and the city's fiscal management. Councilmember Tetimer cast the lone no vote, stating his objection was procedural: he prefers an annual compensation review tied to the annual evaluation and opposed a two-year compensation change.

Council discussion praised the city manager's leadership and the city's financial stewardship; members noted the vote reflected a positive performance evaluation.

The motion passed 4-1. The council did not provide a detailed numeric breakdown of the evaluation scores in the public packet at the meeting; a member of the public asked for that information during comment.