Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for transparency after town manager probe, question $88,440 acting-manager cost
Summary
Public commenters at the July 27 Mansfield Town Council meeting demanded clearer answers about the investigation of the town manager and the costs of placing him on leave, citing staff letters and asking the council to explain an estimated $88,440 acting-manager contract and related travel pay.
Public commenters demanded that the Mansfield Town Council explain a months‑long personnel investigation and the town’s related expenses. Brian Coleman, a local resident, asked that the council remove a municipal campus master‑plan option from the consent agenda so the public could review the plan and the process surrounding the town manager’s administrative leave. "This reeks of obstruction, interference, manipulation," Coleman said, reading from a staff letter and urging that the investigator meet with employees who came forward.
Another resident, Aaron Bowman, pressed the council for cost details after the town declared the investigation found "no violation of policy or law." Bowman said residents deserve to know how and why paid leave and outside‑contract costs accrued: "Why is the town still paying for an acting town manager of approximately $88,440 and a $330 weekly travel pay while the council has not given residents a clear answer?" he asked. Bowman called for the council to disclose which budget lines cover the expenditures and whether the whole council authorized the leave.
Mayor Tony Moran confirmed the council would hear an executive‑session report on firefighter negotiations after adjournment; he did not announce additional public disclosures about the town manager matter. The meeting packet and multiple public speakers referenced a June 13 letter from department heads asking the council to ensure the investigator followed whistleblower and anti‑harassment policies and to allow employees to meet with the investigator. The speakers asked the council to provide regular updates and to clarify the duration, terms and funding sources for the acting manager arrangement.
The public comments did not produce a formal vote on personnel policy during the meeting; the council closed public comment, approved the consent agenda, and later moved to a closed nonmeeting on a separate personnel item. Residents at the meeting said they will continue to request transparency about the process and municipal costs.
