Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter alleges County Manager contract breaches and requests attorney review
Summary
A resident, Earl Daniels, told the commission he has reviewed the county manager’s contract and two amendments and alleged breaches related to residency and personal use of a county vehicle, asking the board to consider legal review; the board declined to take immediate action and asked for any documents to be provided for review.
During the citizen-comment period, Earl Daniels raised concerns about the contract and subsequent amendments for County Manager Julian F. Phillips. Daniels said he had consulted a local government attorney and read portions of the original contract and the second amendment onsite. He asked commissioners, by show of hands, whether any had read the original contract or the two amendments; no hands were raised.
Daniels summarized provisions from the original, signed contract (effective March 2022), including a clause that the manager “shall serve at the pleasure of the county board of commissioners” and a residency requirement that the manager “agree to establish Northampton County as his permanent residency on or before May 2022.” Daniels said he had not obtained a copy of the first amendment but had a copy of the second amendment dated September 2024, which he said deleted the residency paragraph and altered the county automobile provision so the manager could use the vehicle for daily commuting.
Daniels alleged that from May to October 2022 the manager was in breach of the residency clause and that the non-retroactive amendments did not cure the earlier period of noncompliance. He said that earlier commuting and travel reimbursements tied to the county vehicle could constitute misuse and suggested the manager reimburse the county for that use. Daniels offered to provide the attorney opinion to the board; the chair said the board would accept the document for review but did not take immediate action during the meeting.
The chair and other board members cautioned Daniels his remarks were approaching personal attacks and reminded him of the public-comment time limit; he was asked to provide the documents for the board to review outside the public meeting.
Ending: Commissioners asked to receive any written materials and said they would review them separately; no formal investigation or vote was initiated at the meeting.
