Brea City council debates extending city-manager review window amid contract questions

Brea City Council introduced an ordinance to amend the city code to extend the period after an election during which termination proceedings for the city manager may not be initiated from 90 days to six months and approved the city-manager employment contract as part of the consent calendar on March 18, 2025.

City Attorney Boga told the council the proposed ordinance is intended to let a newly seated council have more time to evaluate the city manager’s performance before initiating termination-for-convenience proceedings. "What before you was an ordinance to increase that 90 day period to 6 months," Boga said, adding the change would "allow the council have a full ... even longer period of time to evaluate the city manager." (City Attorney Boga.)

The ordinance’s stated purpose prompted questions from several councilmembers about whether the draft was prompted by a recent hire. One councilmember who supported the measure said it was "not specific to the city manager that we have just brought on board" and framed the change as a process improvement. (Councilmember (Speaker 13).)

Before the ordinance vote, a councilmember identified in the transcript as "Councilmember (Speaker 12)" announced an abstention on the motion and said they would address related contract concerns later. The council then moved forward with the consent calendar, which included final approval of the new city-manager contract.

During later remarks on the contract, the same councilmember said they had opposed the contract and described closed-session negotiation materials they said were not appropriate for public discussion: "I did oppose this contract, and it was in executive session ... so I wasn't free to discuss it, nor will I discuss the particulars or how we voted in that process except to speak on my own behalf." (Councilmember (Speaker 12).) The speaker also referenced a previously circulated figure of "$314,000 a year" and said staff later presented a different figure. The record in open session also reflects a different number described in public comments as "$341,000."

City Attorney Boga cautioned that draft documents presented in closed session are not appropriate for open-session debate and clarified state-law rules about severance: "Under state law ... the maximum severance is up to 18 months depending on how much time is left on the contract. The contract you have approved tonight is actually less than that. It's 12 months max." (City Attorney Boga.)

The councilmember who supported the contract described the approved compensation as aligned with median pay among comparable cities and said the subcommittee negotiated an offer consistent with that benchmark. "We believe in comparing ourselves with our comparison cities and we wish to pay our employees at the median," the councilmember said. (Councilmember (Speaker 13).)

The introduction of the ordinance, the abstention, and the discussion about closed-session materials and public figures about compensation were the primary points of debate recorded in the meeting; the ordinance was introduced for consideration and the contract was approved on the consent calendar. Councilmembers characterized the ordinance change as procedural rather than targeted at the newly appointed city manager, while one member raised concerns about process and disclosure.

Next steps: the ordinance was introduced for consideration (introduction was announced during the March 18 meeting); the item will return for subsequent council action according to the city’s ordinance-adoption process. The contract approved on the consent calendar is recorded as adopted in that item.