Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Larkspur council rejects city manager contract amendment after public push for transparency
Summary
After public concern and council discussion about closed-session deliberations, a proposal to adopt resolution 4825 amending the city manager's employment agreement failed at the Oct. 1 meeting; council members cited legal limits on discussing closed-session performance details while some residents said final votes should be public.
Larkspur 9999Oct. 1, 2025 9999The Larkspur City Council declined to adopt changes to the city manager's employment agreement on Wednesday after public requests to discuss the matter more openly and a split vote that left the amendment without the votes needed to pass.
The item, listed as consent calendar item 4.3 (resolution 4825, amendment No. 13 to the city manager employment agreement), was pulled for discussion after residents asked why a contract adjustment had been placed on consent and what, if anything, the public could be told about the closed-session review that preceded the proposed changes.
Legal counsel told the council the substantive deliberations and performance-review material that occur in closed session are confidential under California law and cannot be publicly disclosed, but the resulting contract terms are public. "Anything that's discussed in closed session regarding the city manager's contract cannot be legally discussed outside of the closed session," the counsel said during council discussion.
Residents and one audience member, Ted Horton of Willow Avenue, asked why the council does not make the final vote publicly transparent and urged more public input on such matters in the future. "Why isn't the final vote on the resolution done in public?" Horton asked during public comment.
Councilmembers debated whether the item belonged on the consent calendar and whether greater public notice or pre-meeting public comment opportunities should be offered when personnel matters will be decided in closed session. One council member said the council has used an outside consultant to standardize the review process this year and that the council can consider process changes to increase transparency going forward.
When the council moved to adopt resolution 4825, the motion was seconded and put to a voice vote. The tally produced two yes votes, one no vote and one abstention among four members present; with a council seat excused the motion did not receive the majority required to pass and the amendment failed. The mayor said the item will return in a future meeting for further consideration.
What happens next: The council left the substantive closed-session record intact as required by law and asked staff to consider ways to give the public advance notice and the opportunity for input prior to future closed-session personnel reviews. The failed vote means any contract changes under consideration will require further council action before they take effect.
Votes and procedural note: The city attorney reminded the council and audience that state law preserves confidentiality for closed-session deliberations but requires that the public be able to see the resulting contract language once the council acts publicly. The council did not adopt the resolution on Oct. 1 and directed staff to return the item at a later date with options for process changes.
Provenance: The discussion was introduced when the mayor notified the council the consent item 4.3 had been pulled (staff report introduction: SEG 256) and concluded after the council announced the motion failed (vote and result: SEG 792).
