Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board postpones action on Jim's contract after debate over severance and retirement language
Summary
The Lapeer Main Street/DDA board debated proposed revisions to the executive directors contract, including how a payment labeled a "bonus" should function as retirement compensation and whether severance language exposes the DDA to liability. The board voted to postpone final action pending attorney review.
The board voted to postpone consideration of the executive directors contract after an extended discussion over retirement-style payments and severance terms. Chair opened the item noting "the bonus was not actually meant to be a bonus" and that because Jim is a contractor he "can't be on the city's retirement plan," so the language should be revised to provide a retirement-style arrangement instead. The board agreed to consult the DDA attorney before finalizing changes.
The severance clause drew the most sustained debate. Chair read the contract provision aloud: "If the employer chooses to terminate [the] employee without cause, the employer shall pay to executive director a severance payment equal to 6 months of employment." A board member who identified themselves as the mayor said the clause, as written, could leave the DDA exposed if ordinary mistakes lead to a large payout; other members countered that existing subsections referencing misconduct, gross negligence and willful misconduct provide broader grounds to terminate for cause. The board moved that consideration be postponed until the executive committee meets with the DDA attorney; Tammy moved the postponement and Megan seconded it, and the motion carried by voice vote.
Next steps: the executive committee will discuss proposed redlines with the DDA attorney and return recommended language to the full board at next month's meeting.
