Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious public comment and council split after issuance of 90-day performance-improvement plan for city manager
Summary
Two council members put an item on the agenda to discuss potential termination of the city manager's contract; council reported issuing a 90-day performance-improvement plan in closed session. Public commenters sharply disagreed — some urged immediate termination, others defended the manager — and council ultimately voted to table termination while pursuing the PIP process.
An agenda item authored by two council members sought public discussion about potentially terminating the city manager's contract. Staff reported that, during closed session, the council had voted to issue a 90-day performance-improvement plan (PIP) for the employee in question; the PIP was presented as a corrective step rather than immediate termination.
Public comment on the matter was sharply divided. Several speakers urged immediate termination, saying the city manager had closed his door to some boards, created morale problems and failed to communicate; one resident asked, "Why do that? You already have your doubts about him." Other commenters defended the city manager, arguing leadership needs time and support, and said firing a manager quickly harms continuity. Council discussion reflected that split: some members argued termination was premature and that management should allow an opportunity for the PIP to work; others said earlier action was warranted. The council voted to table the termination motion and proceed with the performance-improvement process, with the understanding the council could act sooner than 90 days if improvements did not materialize.
