The primary focus of the meeting was the salary negotiation for Mr. Childers’ position as interim city manager, with discussions centered on a proposed $176,000 salary, higher than the initially advertised $100,000. The commission was divided over this increase, with some members expressing concerns that it could create a precedent for heightened salaries among other charter officers and potentially lead to legal complications. One commissioner articulated strong opposition, referencing the initial advertisement and arguing that such a drastic salary change could be perceived as misleading to the other applicants.

A resident, Bob Anderson, highlighted the need for experienced leadership, while his wife, Janie Anderson, cautioned against decisions motivated solely by salary considerations due to ongoing litigation involving the former police chief. The debate over Mr. Childers’ salary exposed a tension between the desire to attract qualified candidates and the responsibility to adhere to budget constraints and established compensation structures.

Despite the salary concerns, some commissioners praised Mr. Childers’ qualifications, noting his extensive experience and potential value to the village. There was acknowledgment that the village had not anticipated a candidate of his caliber and that his willingness to work within the budget should be viewed positively. However, counterarguments emphasized that the village may have misled applicants by not advertising the higher salary, potentially excluding other qualified candidates who may have applied under different circumstances.

Another issue was the severance package associated with Mr. Childers’ contract. The provision of a 10-week severance pay sparked debate, with some commissioners arguing that severance for a temporary role was excessive, especially if termination occurred due to performance issues. The legal counsel clarified that while there was no obligation to offer severance, if included in a contract, it must adhere to statutory guidelines. The compensation structure for vacation and holiday pay also came under scrutiny, as the commission debated whether Mr. Childers should receive additional compensation for working during holidays.

The discussion extended to the contract’s transition period clause, which proposed a 10-business-day overlap with a new permanent manager. Opinions varied on whether this should be mandatory or discretionary, with some commissioners advocating for flexibility to better serve both Mr. Childers and the village’s interests. The conversation underscored the importance of a seamless transition, while also highlighting concerns about financial obligations if Mr. Childers were to remain beyond the interim period.

Concerns were raised about potential conflicts of interest, with assurances given that no personal ties existed between commissioners and Mr. Childers. Ultimately, the commission aimed to reconcile differing views on compensation, severance, and transparency while ensuring the village’s financial prudence.

As the meeting concluded, a motion to approve the amended contract was proposed and voted on, with some commissioners expressing hesitance about the proposed compensation figure. The commission agreed to follow up on the search for a permanent manager at the next regular meeting, with plans to consider additional firms from South Florida.