The Orange City Council on Nov. 21 considered but ultimately rejected a motion to terminate the city clerk’s contract following complaints about the clerk’s communications with elected officials and social-media messages.

Mayor Kelly Marks opened the special meeting by saying the clerk had "demonstrated contempt" for the council and that her failure to respond to a meeting request from Senator Tom Wright’s office "may have cost the city approximately $3,000,000." A council member moved to terminate the clerk’s contract "effective immediately," but after public comment and deliberation the motion failed on a roll call vote, with five members voting no and two voting yes.

The matter drew a large turnout of residents and current and former city staff who spoke in defense of the clerk. "She has been there for me and so many others," Maria Bilby told the council, citing Burleson’s years of service and saying termination over circulated messages was "ridiculous." Meredith Ratcliffe, vice president of Local 375 (professional firefighters of Orange City), urged the council to ensure any action "is grounded in fairness, transparency, and honest evaluation of the facts and not in retaliation."

Burleson addressed the council herself after the motion was seconded. She said she did not have access to council members’ private social-media accounts and asked council members to provide proof of the specific messages cited by the mayor: "Are you able to provide proof of those text messages that I distributed?" she asked. She also said she had scheduled PTO to accompany her mother for surgery and called the timing of the special meeting retaliatory.

Multiple public speakers and several council members questioned the process used to bring the item and whether human-resources procedures and one-on-one conversations would have been more appropriate. Council member Richardson said now was not the time for another major staffing change, citing the city's need for stability while it transitions to a new city manager and new city attorney. Council member Stafford said Burleson "has gone above and beyond" and was not in favor of termination. Council member Knight described the handling of the matter as "ridiculous" and said it could have been addressed differently.

The clerk called the roll on the motion; the recorded votes were five "No" and two "Yes," so the motion failed and no disciplinary termination was adopted. After the vote, the council moved to adjourn.

The meeting included repeated references to potential Sunshine Law concerns in council emails and private messages that residents and a former deputy clerk said warranted review. Several speakers asked for investigations of other matters raised during public comment, including questions about expense reimbursements and phone records, but no formal referral was recorded at the meeting.

The council did not adopt any formal disciplinary action against the clerk during the session. The next procedural steps were not specified at the meeting.