Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Court Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves amended contract for municipal court judge, staff flag inconsistent draft dates
Summary
The council approved a professional services contract for the municipal court judge to align the judge's contract with 'GR 29' and move pay to an hourly invoiced model; the draft's date range printed in the meeting transcript appears inconsistent and staff said they will follow Administrative Office of the Courts guidance.
The council approved a contract for professional services for the municipal court judge after a discussion about aligning the contract with a timeline identified as 'GR 29' and changing the pay from a flat annual sum to hourly invoicing.
Chair (speaker 1) summarized the changes and read the dates printed in the draft: "01/01/2026 through 12/31/2021," and said the change was recommended to bring the contract into alignment with GR 29. He also described an amendment to the termination language to require following the Administrative Office of the Courts' process if the judge fails to perform: "If the judge fails to perform their duty, we have to go through the ... the administrative officer of courts." Council member (speaker 4) moved to approve the contract and council member (speaker 3) seconded; Chair announced the motion carried.
Council members discussed budgeting: the change to hourly invoicing was described as likely to amount to roughly the same annual cost (speaker 3 and speaker 4 estimated about $16,000 a year), with the council continuing to pay invoices up to the approved ceiling rather than a single annual payment. No roll-call vote tally was recorded in the transcript; the minutes record only that the motion was moved, seconded and that "Motion carries." Staff said they had met with the judge and he had no requested changes to the contract language.
The council asked staff to confirm and present precise budget figures and to correct any apparent errors in the contract text before final execution. The transcript includes the draft date range as quoted above; meeting discussion did not resolve whether the end year in that printed range was a typographical error, so staff follow-up was requested.
