Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Pierce commission declines to affirm city attorney renewal after heated governance debate
Summary
After a four-hour governance debate about charter authority and automatic renewal clauses, the Fort Pierce City Commission failed 3–2 to approve an automatic renewal of City Attorney Sarah Hedges’ contract; commissioners said the outcome preserves time for a formal review before the contract’s expiration.
The Fort Pierce City Commission voted 3–2 on May 18 to withhold an affirmative renewal of City Attorney Sarah Hedges’ contract after a lengthy and sometimes combative discussion that centered on charter roles, contract renewal deadlines, and whether legal review has intruded on operational decision‑making.
Commissioner Curtis Zadofsky framed the vote as a governance and charter‑clarity issue, saying the commission needed a “reset that restores clarity of rules, strengthens oversight, [and] improves organizational confidence” rather than an immediate, automatic renewal (Commissioner Zadofsky). Commissioners who opposed renewal said they were exercising the commission’s responsibility to evaluate charter‑officer agreements and to avoid passive automatic renewals without deliberate public review.
Commissioner Broderick moved to renew Hedges’ contract for another year; that motion failed on a roll‑call vote. Mayor Linda Hudson and Commissioner Broderick voted in favor of renewal; Commissioners Zadofsky, Gaines and Johnson voted no. The result means the commission did not take the affirmative step to extend the contract now; the contract remains in effect under its existing terms while the body pursues the scheduled charter‑officer review process.
Several commissioners said they wanted one‑on‑one conversations with Hedges, the city manager and the city clerk before final decisions are made. Hedges said bar ethics and attorney–client privilege limited what she could say in public; she told the commission she was contractually bound to remain on the job during any notice period and urged that deliberations be conducted properly.
The discussion was triggered by questions about contract language that creates notice windows for renewal and the broader need for a standardized internal procedure to calendar and review charter‑officer agreements. Supporters of immediate renewal argued that the city needs stability in its legal office and cautioned that a hairline replacement could create a long learning curve for complex legal matters. Opponents said preserving the commission’s flexibility and time for measured review was responsible governance.
Next steps: commissioners said a formal evaluation of charter officers is already scheduled in June; several members asked staff and HR to prepare the contract inventory and evaluation materials the commission requested.
