Tullahoma board rejects hiring outside law firm for city-administrator review after lengthy debate
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted 4–2 against authorizing the city attorney to hire an outside law firm to perform a city-administrator evaluation and review personnel policy; members split over whether to hire an HR firm or employment attorneys and over process and cost limits.
The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Monday declined to authorize the city attorney’s office to hire an outside law firm to evaluate the city administrator and to analyze city personnel policies, voting 4–2 against a request that would have allowed up to $20,000 without further board approval.
Alderman Glick, who moved the item, said the board originally asked staff to explore a comprehensive HR firm and not a single law firm just to evaluate the administrator. “I’m not in favor of this item,” he said, and urged the board to pursue a broader, written proposal for HR services rather than what he called a piecemeal contract.
City Attorney counsel told the board the firms recommended by the city’s insurance provider and by the Tennessee Municipal Attorneys Association (MTAS) were employment or HR attorneys who specialize in the sort of evaluation required by contract. “The people who do what you’re asking to have done … are HR or employment attorneys,” the city attorney said, describing prior work those firms performed for other Tennessee cities.
Several aldermen pushed for a transparent selection process. Alderman Wilson and Alderman McGee said they wanted a comparison of proposals and assurances about neutrality and potential conflicts of interest before committing public funds. McGee asked for written resumes and clearer pricing information to consider before a vote.
City Administrator Quick responded to references in board email exchanges and litigation concerns. He criticized characterizations in the emails and said he would decide whether to attend portions of the upcoming executive session. “I do not like being referred to as a plaintiff,” he said when members discussed potential litigation involving him.
After more than an hour of discussion that included questions about MTAS recommendations, insurance-provider referrals and whether the board could conduct evaluations without outside help, the motion authorizing staff to hire outside counsel for the evaluation and policy review failed on a 4–2 vote. The board did not adopt a different path at the meeting but indicated it would continue to discuss options, including a possible executive session on the issue.
Next steps: members suggested staff return with clearer written proposals and cost breakdowns or to reopen the discussion when more firms and quotes could be compared. No contract was executed at the meeting.
